Lidz C W, Mulvey E P, Appelbaum P S, Cleveland S
University of Pittsburgh Center for Medical Ethics, PA.
Am J Psychiatry. 1989 Feb;146(2):176-81. doi: 10.1176/ajp.146.2.176.
The reliability and validity of the application of legal criteria for commitment were investigated as part of a larger study. Evaluations of 411 patients by 96 different clinicians showed good interrater reliability for assessment of dangerousness and committability. A strong relationship between ratings of committability and ratings of dangerousness suggests that clinicians were conforming to the logic of the commitment law. Discrepant cases involved patients who desired voluntary admission or whose commitment was completed elsewhere. Results suggest fair application of commitment standards but that two issues of statutory interpretation confused participating clinicians.
作为一项更大规模研究的一部分,对采用法定强制入院标准的可靠性和有效性进行了调查。96位不同的临床医生对411名患者进行的评估显示,在危险性和强制入院可能性评估方面,不同评估者之间具有良好的可靠性。强制入院可能性评分与危险性评分之间存在密切关系,这表明临床医生遵循了强制入院法的逻辑。存在差异的案例涉及希望自愿入院的患者或在其他地方已完成强制入院程序的患者。结果表明强制入院标准的应用较为合理,但有两个法定解释问题困扰着参与研究的临床医生。