Normality: a clinically useless concept. The case of infant crying and colic.

To summarize, it has been argued that: 1. The assessment of complaints about crying and colic present particular diagnostic problems. 2. The crying brought as a complaint seldom indicates disease. 3. Once clinical disease has been ruled out, the clinical meanings of normality and abnormality no longer apply. 4. At that point, one should not try to determine a "cut-off" point for abnormal crying, because (a) it is unhelpful clinically, (b) it is wrong in principle, and (c) it is not likely that any specific amount of crying is normal or abnormal, independent of context. 5. As a possible alternative, it is proposed that we should think of the behavior not a symptom of something the infant "has," but as something the infant "does." This behavior may have consequences that are functional or dysfunctional for the infant, the caregiver, or the infant-caregiver interaction. If this argument has merit, it may have some interesting and important implications for the way we think about, treat, and investigate developmental and behavioral problems including (but not limited to) infant crying and colic. First, what holds true for crying and colic may also hold for bedwetting and enuresis, overactivity and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and abdominal pain and recurrent abdominal pain syndrome, to name just a few. As a brief test of their applicability, one might ask how often organic disease is found in these entities, or how often patients are investigated and treated because an arbitrary amount of these behaviors is taken to be "excessive" or abnormal.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)