Talk:Oppositional defiant disorder

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pharmacystudentkm.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thierry Robillard-Martel, Katewalford, Eugeniegiraldeau, GeraldineCabillo, Tristan510.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree with the criticisms comment
I don't think this is some conspiracy devised by the pharmac industry, but rather yet another display of arrogance from the field.

The concept of ODD sounds as ridiculous now as it did during my undergraduate studies. The helicopter pilot that landed at the My Lai massacre was quite defiant, and that certainly placed him in a harmful situation. Had he been shot on site, or reprimanded, ought we have handed him an ODD diagnosis, rather than drape him with medals for a courageous display of heroism? Defining a disorder retrospectively, based on the outcome rather than the behaviour, makes no sense.

If it were an acceptable way to diagnose perhaps we ought to throw homosexuality back into the next edition of the DSM. Being openly homosexual, to this day, frequently causes individuals distress and significantly interferes with academic or social functioning. I'm sure it can prevent one from learning at school, making friends, place one in dangerous or harmful situations, etc..

I doubt it's even a pragmatically useful diagnosis. I've certainly witnessed serious harm to children due to this diagnosis, though. And why should criticisms be worked into the text? If you are going to make that claim at least make even a remote attempt to qualify it with some kind of reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.183.199 (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * At the risk of starting a pile-on:
 * "To address these problems, the DSM-III-R dropped the criterion of swearing and changed the cutoff from five of nine criteria, to four of eight."
 * So, to adress the criticism of "The diagnosis of ODD was also criticized for medicalizing normal developmental behaviour.", the solution was to use LESS criteria (i.e. making the whole damn thing broader), and to move the cutoff DOWN (as 5 out of 9 is 55.5% of criteria, 4 out of 8 only 50% of criteria)? How is that seen as an addressing of the criticism, instead of doubling down? I know "doubling down" would be loaded speech and should not be included into an encyclopedia, but "address the problems" makes it seem as though anything were addressed, which technically is also loaded speech (i.e. "manipulative" in the most neutral, technical use of the word)
 * As there exists the concept of Psychological resistance, ODD does seem like an old school, "lets-all-follow-daddy-freud"-kind of pathologizing psychology (yes, resistance is central to Freuds psychoanalysis, but if you wanna know what I think of Freud, ask me, ill tell you gladly*, as opposed to an "we are all a wild mixture of different positions on an array of behavioural spectrums", however, ODD does exist and needs to be added to the encyclopedia of everything (even all the bad/stupid/mistaken things...)
 * [*] which probably all I need to say.
 * All the best, OnlyAQuestionOfTime (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a "those who do not conform to majority" disorder. What hogwash! Who creates this garbage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4F3D:5E5C:4030:9616:C93B:ED67 (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I completely do agree, this "disorder" is just a kid having a mind of their own! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.78.9.214 (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Criticisms
It's very telling that this page does not even include a criticisms section. Most wikipedia pages, regardless of their topic, have a criticisms section, and it is very tough to imagine there isn't one competent person anywhere who has objected to these dubious claims. The fire in some of the comments attacking the people for even suggesting a critisisms section (as opposed to filing this under pseudoscience) indicates a dire conflict of interest. "You don't have a kid with ODD so you couldn't possibly know what its like". I could argue the same about you.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.51.46 (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:CSECTION, MEDMOS Order of sections, and WP:MEDRS. I don't know where you got the idea that most wikipedia pages include criticism sections, but any criticism that is sourced to reliable sources should be worked into the text, not separated.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry there has been enormous criticism of the this as its basically complete nonsense. Rebellion is something that used to be considered healthy in children not an illness. Its labelling kids who are a bit naughty as being ill and filling them with expensive drugs. Its basically child abuse - so yes there should be a criticism section.ands it should be bigger than the main article which is basically pseudoscientific subjective mumbo jumbo designed to make pharmaceutical companies a fortune. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.29.40 (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Sandy I'm afraid that is not correct. To include the criticims in a scholarly, scientific or medical article in the flow of the text generates confusion, and is NOT standard practice. All such articles contain - or are meant to contain- Criticism or Controversy sections. Please read more carefully. 114.198.72.82 (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

There is an an enormous body of academic criticism of this and other recent inventions of DSM-5. To not include a criticism section is laughable reminds me of the way the scientologists always try and repress criticism of their equally cuckoo philosophy. The lunatics, it appears, actually are running the asylum.

Some people, notably Bruce E. Levine, argue that Oppositional Defiant Disorder is an abuse of psychiatry. This would do. Some of this content is even offensive, like 'Low socioeconomic status is associated with poor parenting'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.42.228 (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * must you use such horrifically ableist language? "The lunatics, it appears, actually are running the asylum." Dolfone (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Here are two Levine articles that could form the basis of a criticisms section: http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/anarchists-oppressed-psychiatry-and-underground-resistance http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/proven-wrong-about-many-its-assertions-psychiatry-bullsht — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.197.154 (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

-- This article points in the direction of only children having this disorder. If it really is only an illness that children have, then this article should acknowledge whether adults can get it, or if they continue to have it as adults (if they had it as children), or if some out grow it, or can get treatment, etc. Since no adult examples are mentioned, we are clueless as to whether an individual would grow out of the illness, or that if it isn't treated, that the individual would have it the rest of their lives, etc.

-There is no mention of the fact that many of the listed signs and symptoms are also commonly found traits in abused children, I.E. refusing to comply with orders, emotional volatility, distrust of authority, as well as detectable differences in brain formation. Additionally, the phrase "Low socioeconomic status is associated with poor parenting, specifically with inconsistent discipline and poor parental monitoring, which are then associated with an early onset of aggression and antisocial behaviors." implies a racial and class-based bias on the part of the writer, which brings into question their objectivity while editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE74:F6A0:C8FC:4184:2AD6:9CF6 (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Heh it's literally just "being a bitch" as a syndrome. Bring back R D Laing. 31.50.6.62 (talk) 07:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Edits
Three students in my class on abnormal child psychology will be updating this page in the next few weeks. We will try to update the sections on the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria, assessment procedures, and evidence-based treatments, specifically, since these sections seem to need the most work.--Skinner&#39;s Pigeon (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , please be sure your students are familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines for editing medical content and Wikipedia's guidelines for sourcing medical content. Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches may help guide them towards appropriate recent secondary reviews. The "ideal sources" box at the top of this talk page will also be helpful in locating appropriate sources. They should also be aware that the APA strictly guards copyright and has and will come after Wikipedia if they do not carefully rephrase DSM criteria in their own words. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much . I will keep an eye on them. We are all new to editing, but we are familiar with the emphasis on secondary sources and prohibitions against DSM-5 copyright. I do appreciate your comments! Skinner&#39;s Pigeon (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , could you please take a close look at the links I listed above, and ping my talk page if you have further questions? After I wrote the above post, I found numerous issues at Disruptive mood dysregulation disorder, so want to help make sure the students have accessed the correct information about medical content on Wikipedia.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your edits to Disruptive mood dysregulation disorder. It seems like the biggest problems was the lack of page numbers for each citation. We will try to improve that in the future. We will also try to expand the number of secondary sources. It is difficult, however, with a new disorder like DMDD. Skinner&#39;s Pigeon (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There were some other problems there ... hopefully you will step back through the edit summaries to review all of them. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

, here are samples of some recent free text secondary reviews (and how to cite them) -- if your students will work from the best and most recent sources, their work is more likely to be retained ... also, using PMIDs allows other editors to easier check that secondary reviews are used. -- Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I think what Sandy means is, please make sure you are compliant, and don't dare attempt any reasonable criticism of the concept. Wikipedia has gone to the dogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.183.199 (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Ideas to add to article: Elaborate in signs and symptoms section, on the further impairments in school and social venues. Include why this is important information and the potential effects. In the section of diagnosis, give a more in-depth description of who can officially diagnose oppositional defiant disorder, for example doctor, psychotherapist, or having multiple opinions. In the management section of the article, include descriptions of the strategies instead of just listing them, for example what would social skill training look like. In terms of history, analyzing the prevalence of ODD in children in the past to the children of today. Lastly, looking at if some children grow out of oppositional defiant disorder and looking at what their future may look like. In this text there are a lot of medical citations required. Potential bibliography: Fraser, Anne, BA,G.DipPsych(Org), M.ClinPsych, & Wray, John,M.B.B.S., F.R.A.C.P. (2008). Oppositional defiant disorder. Australian Family Physician, 37(6), 402-5. Oppositional Defiant Disorder: An Overview and Strategies for Educators [1] Angold, A. & Costello, J. (1996). Toward Establishing an Empirical Basis for the Diagnosis of Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 35(9), 1205-1212. Katewalford (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Comorbidity and Epidemiology
The epidemiology section for this page is very brief, and I feel that one way to improve it would be to provide information on the comorbid diagnoses that tend to accompany oppositional defiant disorder. These comorbid disorders are a huge part of ODD and have great impacts on those who are diagnosed. My proposed edit, to be added to the epidemiology section is as follows:

ODD has an estimated lifetime prevalence of 10.2% (11.2% for males, 9.2% for females), and of those, over 90% will meet criteria for another lifetime disorder, such as a mood, anxiety, impulse control or substance abuse disorder. In most cases of comorbid disorders, ODD precedes the development of secondary diagnoses. Children with ODD are at increased risk of being diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), major depressive disorder (MDD), bipolar disorder, and anxiety disorders. Additionally, early onset (prior to age 8) of ODD with comorbidity is associated with slow recovery from ODD. Due to the common comorbidity of ODD and conduct disorder, the two diagnoses are often lumped into a single category, despite the fact that many children with ODD do not have and will not develop conduct disorder.

Ashleighjordan (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Treatments
Another suggestion would be to include a brief section on the potential pharmacological treatments that are used. In a cochrane review article by Jik H Loy, Salley N Merry, etc., the pharmacological treatments are discussed. They express how although there is a large amount of variability with pharmacological treatments of Oppositional Defiant Disorder(ODD) how stimulant medications have shown positive effects for treatment of ODD when commorbid with ADHD. Lithium and antipsychotics have also shown positive signs of reducing the aggressive traits of ODD.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leearnoldml (talk • contribs) 01:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Drapetomania
See this revision, which was immediately reverted, for evidence of how unwilling the psychiatric establishment is to tolerate criticism of their power-serving, made-up disorders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.185.207 (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please refer to our policy against original research. El_C 09:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

This subject is apparently so threatening to the establishment, that they cannot even tolerate it being discussed on this "Talk" page. My previous comment, on this same "Talk" page, which referred to a small addition I made to the main page being immediately deleted, WAS ITSELF IMMEDIATELY DELETED. This is AGAINST WIKIPEDIA POLICY ("you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission"), and will be reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.185.207 (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not being deleted. On Wikipedia, new topics go on the bottom. El_C 10:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Age scope
Symptoms 2,4 & 5 (consistent with neuroticism as minor trait otherwise dominated by openness) characterize much of my later adult life but none of them were present in childhood or early adulthood, or even subsequently, at least insofar as authority I judge to be legitimate is concerned. Also I take it a pattern of non-submission to established authority by reasoning adults, such as questioning authority, speaking truth to power, who do so on principle, anarchists, etc. isn't what this about. Clause I added makes that clearer, if that's wrong please supply a reference to adult scope/onset. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Article written by bureaucrats
I suspect that no-one responsible for the current state of this article has ever helped to bring up a normal child. Maproom (talk) 07:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2019, Group 1B Goals
-Move the order of the sections for a better understanding of the topic. Add in an section on the pharmacological treatment of this medical condition Asher1026 (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)asher1026

Social-Cognitive Section
"In fact, students with ODD have limited social knowledge that is based only on individual experiences, which shapes how they process information and solve problems cognitively.

Maybe I'm just too dumb to understand this, but how does this make any sense? How can this claim even be made? Does everyone have social knowledge only based on individual experience? If so, why make it clear that students are people too? There is no speaking person on the planet that is void of social knowledge acquired from anything but their own thoughts. I fail to see how this idiotic sentence has any value, in fact, it reduces the subject in their dismissal of their cognition. Offensive and quite clearly stupid as ****. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:E301:4600:85A7:C842:573D:E752 (talk) 01:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Criticism/Controversy
Why isn't there a section about this? The article for "political abuse of psychiatry" mentions O.D.D. and links to this page, yet there's nary a word about it here? If mention of this criticism is valid elsewhere on Wikipedia, it should be valid here.

Conduct Disorder has an Epidemiology section discussing racial and sex differences, with mention of criticisms that unconscious bias plays a role. Schizophrenia discusses epidemiology. Many articles about sexual disorders include discussion of controversy and it appears to be fairly common to include epidemiology in medical articles. Why not this one? There's plenty of academic literature about racial demographics in ODD and conduct disorder. Given that this article is explicitly linked in discussion of psychiatric abuse elsewhere, the omission is glaring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:199:4480:6f00::c2e9 (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I've added a section for controversy. Will also rewrite epidemiology section to include literature about racial bias and discrimination. Luiysia (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Still desperately needs a criticisms section
Every one of the listed symptoms, with the possible exception of "intentionally annoys others" can be induced in a normal human being who is chronically deprived of sleep by authority figures. Given that 1) American schools tend to start so early that even normal kids are commonly sleep deprived, and 2) some kids have insomnia, worsening school-based sleep-deprivation, and 3) the legal punishments for chronic truancy can include prison and/or (expensive) prison-like "treatment", it would be justified to call ODD nothing but a profitable form of victim-blaming.

And when I say "expensive", I mean that your local school system, state human services agency, and private health insurance company are going broke over inadequately-criticized behavioral health conditions, raising your taxes and premiums. $427 a day, according to NBC News, with "treatment" sometimes lasting years. Oh, and sometimes these treatment facilities murder kids too. That's also in the NBC News link, in case anyone cares about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:8700:1100:4db4:712:ab37:218e (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's some additional possible sources:
 * The diagnosis oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) has informed interventions that have improved challenging home and classroom dynamics for many individuals. However, growing evidence suggests the diagnosis may lead to inadvertent harm by (1) exacerbating stigma associated with reactive behavior and (2) enabling the mischaracterization of normative reactions to trauma as issues of self-control. These harms have significant implications for racial and health equity as they disproportionately affect youth from marginalized backgrounds.
 * Using ethnographic interviews with agents of the care system, I explore the ways in which the system pathologizes Latinas’ quotidian acts of resistance and survival like their use of silences through the behavioral diagnosis of Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). I argue that California’s foster care system is an arm of the transcarceral continuum, marking girls of color and their strategies of resistance as pathological, thereby criminalizing them through the diagnosis of behavioral disorders.
 * Instead of addressing the root causes of trauma and working to reduce a student’s at-home stress, the school system has often labeled these children (Pyscher & Lozenski, 2014) as “‘unruly’ or ‘unmotivated,’” which is often followed by diagnoses of learning disabilities, ADHD, or Oppositional Defiant Disorder (Perry & Daniels, 2016, p. 178). The labels themselves pathologize students but, if their behavior is determined “unmanageable” by a teacher, students might be removed from the classroom, isolating them from community, and their peers, and communicating to them that they are the problem (Pyscher & Lozenski, 2014). This micro-level focus on student behavior minimizes the responsibility of systems, which are out of student control, and “blames children and families for challenges they did not cause” (Khasnabis & Goldin, 2020, p. 46).
 * The addition of ODD as an independent psychiatric disorder was also severely criticized due to perceptions that it pathologized normative childhood behaviors (Rutter & Shaffer, 1980), especially in the absence of aggressive CD symptoms (Achenbach, 1980). The lack of empirical evidence supporting the proposed symptom thresholds for ODD and CD, as well as other mental disorders, also added fuel to the controversy regarding the DSM–III diagnostic system.
 * Key controversies are that diagnoses of ODD may be racially-biased; the diagnosis itself my pathologize normal behavior or behavior that is simply a normal way to cope with trauma and stress; and that the diagnosis shifts blame to children when the root cause is often elsewhere. It may be worth looking at the similar controvery section on ADHD, which has many of the same criticisms (one of the sources above even lumps the problems with the two diagnoses together.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Key controversies are that diagnoses of ODD may be racially-biased; the diagnosis itself my pathologize normal behavior or behavior that is simply a normal way to cope with trauma and stress; and that the diagnosis shifts blame to children when the root cause is often elsewhere. It may be worth looking at the similar controvery section on ADHD, which has many of the same criticisms (one of the sources above even lumps the problems with the two diagnoses together.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I am inclined here to agree with Aquillion and the IP -- I've never been able to understand precisely what this disorder means. The sources linked above seem quite reasonable: in its current state, the article seems to exclusively quote material to the effect that skipping school makes you insane. jp×g 10:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I've added a section for criticisms using these sources and some other ones. I'd appreciate if someone could expand it. I also think the entire epidemiology section needs to be rewritten - ridiculous to uncritically suggest that ODD just so happens to be more common in certain populations without mentioning racial bias. Luiysia (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Race and gender section is very US-centric
I've added the globalize template to mention that this section only refers to the US. Greenking2000 (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)