Saturday, September 5, 2015

Evaluation of General Sources

In this blog post, I will be analyzing two articles on a controversy surrounding the recent revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM-5. In this most recent revision, the bereavement exclusion criteria for Major Depressive Disorder has been removed. Meaning, grief from the loss of a loved one may now count towards having Depression.

A. Psychiatric Times article

Bergmann, Hannah, "http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/major-depressive-disorder/bereavement-and-dsm-5-one-last-time," September 5, 2015 via screenshot, Attribution Generic 2.0 License

  1. What is the URL? What does the domain name imply? Does this indicate that the source is credible?
  2. Can you identify an author for the information? Can you verify the author's qualifications?
    • The author of this article is Robert W. Pies, MD, from SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, and Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston.
  3. When was the article last updated? What sort of links are on the page? Where do those links take you? Are they still working?
    • This article was written on December 11, 2012. The DSM-5 was approved on December 1, 2012, but was published in 2013. There are working links to related articles about the DSM on the site. Although this article is three years old, it is still considered relevant because of the subject matter. The DSM is revised once about every ten years. So, the debate surrounding the recent 2013 revision is still pertinent to today's conversation.
  4. What is the text trying to accomplish? Is its purpose to inform, entertain, or persuade the reader? Does it appear to be promoting a commercial product, an idea, a philosophy, or some other way of seeing something?
    • This article's purpose is to answer questions the reader may have about the reasons for the revisions to the DSM. It's purpose is to inform the reader of these reasons and to convince them that this revision serves patients best.
  5. Are there graphics? What do they illustrate and why?
    • There is an image of a man in a gray hoodie outside grabbing some kind fence or cell bars with visible despair. This emotional image serves to set the reader up to view the man as depressed and more readily believe that with the new revisions to the DSM, more depressed people can get the care they need.
  6. Does the source seem biased, one-sided, incomplete, or erroneous? Who profits if viewers of the website believe its information to be true? Can you verify the information with other online or print sources?
    • This source is written by one of the editors of the DSM-5, as revealed within the article. This means the author is likely biased in favor of the revisions made to the DSM. Although the information the author is providing is based on scientific fact, as he cites in his "References" section, the author is notably biased. As an indication of this, the DSM benefits in credibility if viewers believe the author.
  7. Does the source suggest avenues for further inquiry such as possible readings, research, or links? Does it cite reputable sources or note the extent to which claims in the text are connected to recognized authorities in the field?
    • The article sites 7 reputable sources at the end of the article in a "References" section.



B. National Health Services (UK) article

Bergmann, Hannah, "http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/08august/pages/controversy-mental-health-diagnosis-and-treatment-dsm5.aspx," September 5, 2015 via screenshot, Attribution Generic 2.0 License

  1. What is the URL? What does the domain name imply? Does this indicate that the source is credible?
  2. Can you identify an author for the information? Can you verify the author's qualifications?
    • There is no identified author of the article. The source is marked as edited by NHS Choices, the site it's published on.
  3. When was the article last updated? What sort of links are on the page? Where do those links take you? Are they still working?
    • The article was written on August 15, 2013. There are links to further reading about the DSM from various sites. Most links work but a few do not.
  4. What is the text trying to accomplish? Is its purpose to inform, entertain, or persuade the reader? Does it appear to be promoting a commercial product, an idea, a philosophy, or some other way of seeing something?
    • This text appears to have the purpose of informing its audience about the recent revisions in the DSM. The text also presents both sides of thee argument to explain to readers the depth of the debate.
  5. Are there graphics? What do they illustrate and why?
    • There is a photo of the word "depression" on a dictionary page, highlighting the main focus of the article.
  6. Does the source seem biased, one-sided, incomplete, or erroneous? Who profits if viewers of the website believe its information to be true? Can you verify the information with other online or print sources?
    • The source does seem biased. It is written by the English national healthcare system, and within the article, there seems to be promotion of NHS in comparison to the US's healthcare system. There is even an entire section explaining how many UK doctors are opposed to the DSM because they put the patients first and believe in what they described as an individualized approach to mental health.
  7. Does the source suggest avenues for further inquiry such as possible readings, research, or links? Does it cite reputable sources or note the extent to which claims in the text are connected to recognized authorities in the field?
    • The source provides links to related articles on various reputable sites. It also hyperlinks different related sources within the article.

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)