tions are employed for forensic purposes, ther e is a risk that diagnostic information will be
misused or misunderstood. These dangers aris e because of the imperfect fit between the
questions of ultimate concern to  the law and the information contained in a clinical diagno-
sis. In most situations, the clinical diagnosis of a DSM-5 mental disorder such as intellec-
tual disability (intellectual developmental di sorder), schizophrenia , major neurocognitive
disorder, gambling disorder, or pedophilic di sorder does not imply that an individual
with such a condition meets legal criteria for the presence of a mental disorder or a speci-
fied legal standard (e.g., for co mpetence, criminal responsibility , or disability). For the latter,
additional information is usually required beyond that contained in the DSM-5 diagnosis,
which might include information about the individual’s functional impairments and how
these impairments affect the particular abilities in question. It is precisely because impair-
ments, abilities, and disabilities vary widely wi thin each diagnostic category that assign-
ment of a particular diagnosis does not imply a specific level of im pairment or disability.
Use of DSM-5 to assess for th e presence of a mental diso rder by nonclinical, nonmed-
ical, or otherwise insufficiently trained indi viduals is not advised. Nonclinical decision
makers should also be cautioned that a di agnosis does not carry any necessary implica-
tions regarding the etiology or causes of the individual’s mental di sorder or the individ-
ual’s degree of control over behaviors that may be associat ed with the disorder. Even
when diminished control over one’s behavior is a feature of the disorder, having the diag-
nosis in itself does not demons trate that a particular individu al is (or was) unable to con-