Reliability,Validity, and Classification Accuracy of the DSM-5 Diagnostic Criteria for Gambling Disorder and Comparison to DSM-IV

The DSM-5 was published in 2013 and it included two substantive revisions for gambling disorder (GD). These changes are the reduction in the threshold from five to four criteria and elimination of the illegal activities criterion. The purpose of this study was to twofold. First, to assess the reliability, validity and classification accuracy of the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for GD. Second, to compare the DSM-5–DSM-IV on reliability, validity, and classification accuracy, including an examination of the effect of the elimination of the illegal acts criterion on diagnostic accuracy. To compare DSM-5 and DSM-IV, eight datasets from three different countries (Canada, USA, and Spain; total N = 3247) were used. All datasets were based on similar research methods. Participants were recruited from outpatient gambling treatment services to represent the group with a GD and from the community to represent the group without a GD. All participants were administered a standardized measure of diagnostic criteria. The DSM-5 yielded satisfactory reliability, validity and classification accuracy. In comparing the DSM-5 to the DSM-IV, most comparisons of reliability, validity and classification accuracy showed more similarities than differences. There was evidence of modest improvements in classification accuracy for DSM-5 over DSM-IV, particularly in reduction of false negative errors. This reduction in false negative errors was largely a function of lowering the cut score from five to four and this revision is an improvement over DSM-IV. From a statistical standpoint, eliminating the illegal acts criterion did not make a significant impact on diagnostic accuracy. From a clinical standpoint, illegal acts can still be addressed in the context of the DSM-5 criterion of lying to others.     

Disabled people,inclusion and policy: better outcomes through a public health approach?

The social model of disability has implications for evaluation of disability policy. Public health analyses suggest that a population and environmental approach to enablement is more likely to impact positively on disabled people than person-centred action. The capacity of people living with disabilities to participate in a range of social activities and the attitudes of others to such participation are, along with environments, important factors contributing to disability situations and therefore the restriction of our promotion of personhood. These are areas where metrics could be used to evaluate the impact of disability policy.     

Estimation following selection of the largest of two normal means

This paper considers the problem of estimation when one of a number of populations, assumed normal with known common variance, is selected on the basis of it having the largest observed mean. Conditional on selection of the population, the observed mean is a biased estimate of the true mean. This problem arises in the analysis of clinical trials in which selection is made between a number of experimental treatments that are compared with each other either with or without an additional control treatment. Attempts to obtain approximately unbiased estimates in this setting have been proposed by Shen [2001. An improved method of evaluating drug effect in a multiple dose clinical trial. Statist. Medicine 20, 1913–1929] and Stallard and Todd [2005. Point estimates and confidence regions for sequential trials involving selection. J. Statist. Plann. Inference 135, 402–419]. This paper explores the problem in the simple setting in which two experimental treatments are compared in a single analysis. It is shown that in this case the estimate of Stallard and Todd is the maximum-likelihood estimate (m.l.e.), and this is compared with the estimate proposed by Shen. In particular, it is shown that the m.l.e. has infinite expectation whatever the true value of the mean being estimated. We show that there is no conditionally unbiased estimator, and propose a new family of approximately conditionally unbiased estimators, comparing these with the estimators suggested by Shen.