If a direct correlation between event intensity (an objective assessment) and the development of PTSD could be established, then no one could blame trauma victims for their reactions. However, Herman (1997) argued that neither the DSM-III or DSM-III-R criteria for diagnosing PTSD accounted for the profound and complex aftereffects of prolonged and/or repeated victimization experienced by hostages, concentration camp survivors, survivors of sexual abuse during childhood, or adults dealing with the legacy of domestic abuse and violence. When articulating the struggles of those treating patients who were the most severely traumatized, repeatedly and over a long period of time, Herman argued that the symptoms of multiple-event trauma are more intransigent, are often personality altering, and are often more generalized and less obviously related to the trauma than these symptoms would be in people who had experienced a single-event trauma. In other words, Herman argued that unless the subjective experience of trauma were included in the revisions to the diagnostic criteria for PTSD in the DSM-IV, many people’s suffering from PTSD would remain unrecognized and untreated—or treated ineffectively or in a way that further traumatizes the patient.