It's true. You wouldn't believe how many people I've SIGECAPS'd during my medical training. I didn't realize this article was the beginning of this approach, but it certainly helped get care to people who previously wouldn't have received it. Though I'm sure there are also many who may require intervention that aren't captured by a SIGECAPS exam. The double edged sword of the checklist manifesto, though I overall think it has been beneficial.

SIGECAPS is an acronym taught in US medicine for the diagnosis of major depressive disorder: Sleep disturbance, Interest loss, Guilt, Energy loss, Concentration loss, Appetite changes, Psychomotor agitation, Suicidality. And must have Depressed mood or Anhedonia (inability to enjoy things previously enjoyable).

The history of the SIG E CAPS acronym is also interesting, I've heard it was short for SIG (old shorthand for "to be prescribed") Energy CAPsules.

And interestingly, how often the patients in the ward could spot these normal people while the medical staff did not.

Nowadays there's a lot of FUTON bias in research. There's so much power in just hitting the streets or reaching out to your circle.

For the most part, you care the most about your circle, so if that isn't representative of the whole of society, it sounds like somebody else's problem. Who said all research needed to be perfect.

ahh now its getting spicy grabs popcorn

sounds like the truth might be somewhere in the middle -- this is what chat jippity has to say

What is not clearly true “We now know this was a spectacularly successful case of scientific fraud”

This is where the claim goes too far.

Fraud requires intent to deceive, not just:

Poor recordkeeping

Exaggeration

Selective reporting

Unverifiable claims

Cahalan herself:

Stops short of proving deliberate fraud

Argues the study is unreliable, not conclusively fabricated

No formal finding of scientific misconduct was ever made.

Some pseudopatients almost certainly existed, even if the study was embellished.

Most historians would say:

Rosenhan’s study is deeply flawed, possibly exaggerated, and scientifically indefensible by modern standards — but “proven fraud” is stronger than the evidence allows.

How experts usually frame it today

A more accurate consensus view would be:

Rosenhan’s paper was methodologically weak and poorly documented

Its conclusions were overstated

Its influence on DSM-III was real but indirect

Psychiatry’s reforms were driven by many factors, not Rosenhan alone

The study’s continued citation often reflects mythologizing, not careful scholarship

A more accurate rewrite of the statement

If you want something that would be defensible in an academic setting:

Rosenhan’s 1973 paper was highly influential in debates that preceded DSM-III and continues to be widely cited. However, subsequent investigation—most notably by Susannah Cahalan—has raised serious doubts about the study’s methodology, documentation, and reliability. While these findings undermine confidence in Rosenhan’s conclusions, claims that the study constitutes proven scientific fraud remain contested.

apologies in advance for copy-pasta AI (does it break site guidelines? idk) im just not an expert in this stuff (probably approximately none of us on this site are!)

I'd say yes. I have a book by Lauren Slater, called 'Opening Skinners Box' in which she researched many psychological experiments of the past, and subjected herself to similar conditions where she could, in an effort to understand better.

The chapter on 'Thud' ended with her visiting a psychiatric hospital of good reputation with an emergency room, she basically said the same things as the researchers in the paper. She was given some anti-psychotics and sent away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opening_Skinner%27s_Box

Nope!

https://archive.is/tH0il