cesses, which were not constructed to evaluate the validity of DSM-IV diagnostic criteria.
However, the DSM-5 Task Force, which had re viewed proposed changes and had responsi-
bility for reviewing the text describing each  disorder contemporaneously with the work
groups during this period, was in a unique positio n to render an informed judgment on the sci-
entific merits of such revisions. Furthermore, ma ny of these major changes were subject to field
trial testing, although comprehensive testing of all proposed changes could not be accommo-
dated by such testing because of time limitations and availa bility of resources.
A final recommendation from the task forc e was then provided  to the APA Board of
Trustees and the APA Assembly’s Committee on DSM-5 to consider some of the clinical
utility and feasibility features of the propos ed revisions. The assembly is a deliberative