↓ Skip to main content

Textual Standardization and the DSM-5 “Common Language”

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Humanities, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Textual Standardization and the DSM-5 “Common Language”
Published in
Journal of Medical Humanities, March 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10912-014-9281-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patty A. Kelly

Abstract

In February 2010, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) launched their DSM-5 website with details about the development of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). The APA invited "the general public" to review the draft diagnostic criteria and provide written comments and suggestions. This revision marks the first time the APA has solicited public review of their diagnostic manual. This article analyzes reported speech on the DSM-5 draft diagnostic criteria for the classification Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. It demonstrates how textual standardization facilitates the cultural portability of the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria such that a community of speakers beyond the borders of the APA come to be seen as exemplary speakers, writers, and revisers of the professional style. Furthermore, analysis shows how co-authoring practices recontextualize the "voice" and persona of putative patient reported speech on Criterion D2. As a consequence of textual standardization, spoken discourse becomes recontextualized as the product of scientific inquiry and the organization of psychiatric knowledge.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 32%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Professor 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 37%
Arts and Humanities 5 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 May 2014.
All research outputs
#13,059,827
of 22,755,127 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Humanities
#251
of 416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,852
of 225,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Humanities
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,755,127 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 416 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 225,171 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.