Is Attention- Deficit/hyperactivity Disorder (adhd) a Real Disorder?

Advance Abnormal Psychology

Critical Issues Analysis Paper on:

Is Attention- Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) a Real Disorder?

David Mbelu

University of Phoenix Graduate Student

Q1: TWO FACTS BY EACH SIDE OF THE ISSUE

One of the facts out the many facts presented by the Pro side of the critical issue is on page 134, para 3, that when a child's hyperactivity, distractibility, poor concentration, or impulsivity begin to affect performance in school, social relationship with other children, or behavior at home, ADHD is suspected. This is consistent with the DSM-IV-TR, criteria for children suffering ADHD.

The second basic fact presented by the Pro side of the critical issue is on page 135, para 1, that according to the most recent version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder ( DSM-IV-TR), there are three patterns of behavior displayed by ADHD patient, first, that people with ADHD may show several signs of being consistently inattentive. Second, they display a pattern of being hyperactivity and impulsive far more than others of their age. Third, they may show all three types of behavior. Furthermore, the above aforementioned patterns of behavior displayed by ADHD imports that there are three subtypes of ADHD recognized by professionals in the field of mental health. The Pro side of the critical issue summarized the three subtypes of ADHD thus: First is the predominantly hyperactivity-impulse type, second is the predominantly inattentive type, and third the combined type involving display of inattentive and hyperactive-impulsive symptoms.

On the other hand, one fact adduced by the Con side author of the critical issue is his statement on page 145, para 2, that when distractibility and/or hyperactivity characterize the child's everyday behavior (especially if accompanied by factors such as delayed development, learning difficulties, impaired motor skills, and impaired judgment) that they may be indicative of either a neurological disorder. We consider this a factual statement given current research evidence that ADHD is a chronic neuropsychiatric syndrome that presents clinically with symptoms of restlessness (Baron & Bizamcer, 2004).

Another fact statement by the Con side author is on page 144, para 3, where he states that certainly, there are deficiencies of attention and hyperactivity, but such behavioral aberrations are most often indicative of a transitory state or conditions within the organism, that they are in and of themselves indicative of a disorder. We consider this as a factual statement because it corroborates with Pro side argument on page 135, para4, of the article that not everyone who is overly hyperactive, inattentive, or impulsivity has ADHD, because everyone has some of these behaviors at times as such diagnosis require that such behavior be demonstrated to a degree that is inappropriate for the person age. The diagnostic guidelines also contain specific requirements for determining when the symptoms are suggestive of a disorder.

Q2: TWO OPINIONS BY EACH SIDE OF THE ATHORS

As far as my knowledge of critical thinking avails me I did see any opinion view from the Pro side of the critical issue. I said this without fear or favor because the Pro side of the critical issue is a professional document that really passed through the furnace of the professional criticisms, afterwards scientifically and empirically approved as a national working document for the diagnosis and management of ADHD by NIMH the highest body of mental health professionals. Therefore, such document by all standards is devoid of opinions. This is my view.

The Con side author projected more opinions than facts in his article. One of such opinions is on page 145, para 2, where he states that after nearly fifty years of diagnosing and treating several thousand of such problems, it is his considered judgment that the distractibility and hyperactivity seen in such children is not the same as the distractibility and hyperactivity in children currently diagnosed as having ADHD. This statement as he rightly claimed remains a mere personal judgment without any valid evidenced of research study, moreso personal judgment on issue are non-scientific let alone on critical issue of this nature.

The second statement of opinion by the Con side author is his argument on page 145, para 4, of his article where he addresses his concern on what he considers as a major and profound disservice occasioned by the current fad of elevating nonspecific symptoms such as anxiety and hyperactivity to the level of a symptom or disorder and their diagnosing ADD/ADHD leads to lumping together individuals with very different problems; thereby, treating the problems with a single entity, resulting in a one-pill-fits-all approach. In addition, he widely accused many mental health providers such as child psychiatrists, child psychologists, child social workers, as well as many general care practioners , such as pediatricians, internists as lacking the competent to make such discrimination supposedly occurring from the current fad. As a result he concluded that such prctioners are not trained and equipped to provide ongoing care, even when an appropriate diagnosis has been made. Much as I may be loosely tempted to accept this as true given the avalanche of quarks practioners in the recent times in the field mental health , I believe it is crystally over simplification to state his opinion in such a nauseating manor, which is at best tantamount to running down other mental health professionals credibility in their different areas of specializations.

Q3: WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE PRO SIDE AUTHOR

Some of the strengths of the Pro side of the critical issue may be considered from the perspective of a critical document presented by a legal body known as National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), which by all standard is a representation of all the experts knowledge projected by the consortium of professional mental scientists in the fields of mental health.

Another major strength of the Pro side of the critical issue is that any view point reflected in the NIMH document regarding ADHD is scientifically and empirically developed, and above all is critically peer reviewed. Furthermore, NIMH document is a legal and binding working document for all practicing mental health professionals nationally.