Brown T A, Di Nardo P A, Lehman C L, Campbell L A
Center for Anxiety and Related Disorders, Boston University, 648 Beacon Street, 6th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02215-2013, USA.
J Abnorm Psychol. 2001 Feb;110(1):49-58. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.110.1.49.
The reliability of current and lifetime Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) anxiety and mood disorders was examined in 362 outpatients who underwent 2 independent administrations of the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-IV: Lifetime version (ADIS-IV-L). Good to excellent reliability was obtained for the majority of DSM-IV categories. For many disorders, a common source of unreliability was disagreements on whether constituent symptoms were sufficient in number, severity, or duration to meet. DSM-IV diagnostic criteria. These analyses also highlighted potential boundary problems for some disorders (e.g., generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder). Analyses of ADIS-IV-L clinical ratings (0-8 scales) indicated favorable interrater agreement for the dimensional features of DSM-IV anxiety and mood disorders. The findings are discussed in regard to their implications for the classification of emotional disorders.
在362名门诊患者中,对当前及终生的《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》(第4版;DSM-IV;美国精神病学协会,1994年)焦虑和情绪障碍的可靠性进行了检查,这些患者接受了两次独立的《DSM-IV焦虑症访谈量表:终生版》(ADIS-IV-L)测评。大多数DSM-IV类别获得了良好到优秀的可靠性。对于许多障碍来说,一个常见的不可靠来源是对于构成症状在数量、严重程度或持续时间上是否足以满足DSM-IV诊断标准存在分歧。这些分析还突出了一些障碍(如广泛性焦虑障碍和重度抑郁症)潜在的边界问题。对ADIS-IV-L临床评分(0 - 8级量表)的分析表明,对于DSM-IV焦虑和情绪障碍的维度特征,评定者间一致性良好。讨论了这些发现对情绪障碍分类的影响。