The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×
Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.119.4.351

1. An investigation of the reliability of psychiatric diagnoses was designed to minimize factors that would artificially lower or inflate the rate of concordance. A series of 153 patients were examined independently by paired psychiatrists and diagnoses were made independently according to the standard nomenclature. The degree of agreement (54%) on specific diagnoses was statistically significant (p<.001) and was higher than that obtained in other comparable studies.

2. In cases where both diagnosticians indicated they were certain of the diagnosis, the agreement rate (81%) was found to be significantly higher than in the remaining cases.

3. When the diagnosticians gave both a preferred diagnosis and an alternative diagnosis, it was found that the rate of agreement between either diagnosis offered by one diagnostician and either diagnosis of the other was 82%. This suggested that the diagnosticians may have been closer in their appraisals than indicated by the scoring of only the preferred diagnoses.

4. An additional method of classification consisted of rating the patients on a 4-point scale along a single dimension, viz., the depth of depression. It was found that, when they used this method, the diagnosticians agreed within one scale unit in 99% of the cases.

5. It was suggested that the present system of diagnosis could be improved by focusing greater attention on appropriate training in diagnostic skills, the identification of the defects in current interviewing techniques, and the development of more uniform clinical procedures.

Access content

To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.