BACKGROUND: A new diagnostic category, hoarding disorder (HD), has been proposed for inclusion in DSM-5. This study field-tested the validity, reliability and perceived acceptability of the proposed diagnostic criteria for HD. Method Fifty unselected individuals with prominent hoarding behavior and 20 unselected, self-defined 'collectors' participated in thorough psychiatric assessments, involving home visits whenever possible. A semi-structured interview based on the proposed diagnostic criteria for HD was administered and scored by two independent raters. 'True' diagnoses were made by consensus according to the best-estimate diagnosis procedure. The percentage of true positive HD cases (sensitivity) and true negative HD cases (specificity) was calculated, along with inter-rater reliability for the diagnosis and each criterion. Participants were asked about their perceptions of the acceptability, utility and stigma associated with the new diagnosis. RESULTS: Twenty-nine (58%) of the hoarding individuals and none of the collectors fulfilled diagnostic criteria for HD. The sensitivity, specificity and inter-rater reliability of the diagnosis, and of each individual criterion and the specifiers, were excellent. Most participants with HD (96%) felt that creating a new disorder would be very or somewhat acceptable, useful (96%) and not too stigmatizing (59%). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed HD criteria are valid, reliable and perceived as acceptable and useful by the sufferers. Crucially, they seem to be sufficiently conservative and unlikely to overpathologize normative behavior. Minor changes in the wording of the criteria are suggested.
BACKGROUND: A new diagnostic category, hoarding disorder (HD), has been proposed for inclusion in DSM-5. This study field-tested the validity, reliability and perceived acceptability of the proposed diagnostic criteria for HD. Method Fifty unselected individuals with prominent hoarding behavior and 20 unselected, self-defined 'collectors' participated in thorough psychiatric assessments, involving home visits whenever possible. A semi-structured interview based on the proposed diagnostic criteria for HD was administered and scored by two independent raters. 'True' diagnoses were made by consensus according to the best-estimate diagnosis procedure. The percentage of true positive HD cases (sensitivity) and true negative HD cases (specificity) was calculated, along with inter-rater reliability for the diagnosis and each criterion. Participants were asked about their perceptions of the acceptability, utility and stigma associated with the new diagnosis. RESULTS: Twenty-nine (58%) of the hoarding individuals and none of the collectors fulfilled diagnostic criteria for HD. The sensitivity, specificity and inter-rater reliability of the diagnosis, and of each individual criterion and the specifiers, were excellent. Most participants with HD (96%) felt that creating a new disorder would be very or somewhat acceptable, useful (96%) and not too stigmatizing (59%). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed HD criteria are valid, reliable and perceived as acceptable and useful by the sufferers. Crucially, they seem to be sufficiently conservative and unlikely to overpathologize normative behavior. Minor changes in the wording of the criteria are suggested.
Authors: R Scott Mackin; Ofilio Vigil; Philip Insel; Alana Kivowitz; Eve Kupferman; Christina M Hough; Shiva Fekri; Ross Crothers; David Bickford; Kevin L Delucchi; Carol A Mathews Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2015-10-16 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: Carolyn I Rodriguez; Helen Blair Simpson; Shang-Min Liu; Amanda Levinson; Carlos Blanco Journal: J Nerv Ment Dis Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 2.254
Authors: Eliza J Davidson; Mary E Dozier; James O E Pittman; Tina L Mayes; Brian H Blanco; John D Gault; Lauren J Schwarz; Catherine R Ayers Journal: Curr Psychiatry Rep Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 5.285
Authors: Christina M Hough; Tracy L Luks; Karen Lai; Ofilio Vigil; Sylvia Guillory; Arvind Nongpiur; Shiva M Fekri; Eve Kupferman; Daniel H Mathalon; Carol A Mathews Journal: Psychiatry Res Neuroimaging Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 2.376