Section of Psychiatry, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, BUP-divisionen, PO Box 17564, SE-11891, Stockholm, Sweden.
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2012 Nov;39(6):458-65. doi: 10.1007/s10488-011-0369-5.
The aim of this study was to compare two methods to conduct CGAS rater training. A total of 648 raters were randomized to training (CD or seminar), and rated five cases before and 12 months after training. The ICC at baseline/end of study was 0.71/0.78 (seminar), 0.76/0.78 (CD), and 0.67/0.79 (comparison). There were no differences in training effect in terms of agreement with expert ratings, which speaks in favor of using the less resource-demanding CD. However, the effect was modest in both groups, and untrained comparison group improved of the same order of magnitude, which proposes more extensive training.
本研究旨在比较两种进行 CGAS 评分者培训的方法。共有 648 名评分者随机分为培训组（CD 或研讨会），并在培训前和培训后 12 个月对五个案例进行评分。基线/研究结束时的 ICC 分别为 0.71/0.78（研讨会）、0.76/0.78（CD）和 0.67/0.79（比较组）。在与专家评分的一致性方面，两种培训方法的效果没有差异，这表明使用资源需求较低的 CD 更为有利。然而，两组的效果都比较有限，未经过培训的对照组也取得了相同程度的提高，这表明需要进行更广泛的培训。
