Disability Diagnoses: Seven Sins of Clinicians

AbstractResearch has increasingly demonstrated that clinicians are making disability diagnoses in young adults using flexible and expansive diagnostic criteria, or in some cases ignoring research-informed criteria all together. Commonly exhibited behaviors long considered normal as well as average achievement are now being characterized as disabilities. These practices create an issue of fairness, in that disability diagnoses allow access to academic accommodations that provide significant competitive advantage as well as access to substantial government-funded subsidies and benefits. This paper reviews the most common thinking and reasoning errors encountered by clinicians reviewing disability documentation submitted by adults requesting academic accommodations in educational settings or on high-stakes examinations. Possible reasons why clinicians commit these errors are explored, including the idea that concept creep and critical disability theory have altered and expanded clinicians ’ views regarding what is considered a disability and also the definition of disability itself. The potential ramifications of such diagnostic errors are explored, leading to the conclusion that trust in the diagnostic process and the integrity of the professionals charged with making these decisi ons will erode if such practices continue, with psychology ultimately being removed from the decision-making process in accommodation decisions.

Source: Psychological Injury and Law - March 11, 2022 Category: Medical Law Source Type: research