Suppr超能文献

DSM 诊断和经验衍生原型诊断在心境、焦虑和人格障碍中的可靠性。

Reliability of DSM and empirically derived prototype diagnosis for mood, anxiety and personality disorders.

机构信息

Baruch Ivcher School of Psychology, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya, P.O. Box 167, Herzliya 46150, Israel.

Department of Psychology and Psychiatry, Emory University, 201 Dowman Drive, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.

出版信息

Compr Psychiatry. 2018 Aug;85:8-14. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2018.06.001. Epub 2018 Jun 9.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Prominent psychiatric diagnostic systems such as the DSM-IV and ICD-10 have shown low reliability in clinical practice. An alternative approach to classification of psychiatric disorders is prototype matching. In the current study, we examined reliability of assessing mood, anxiety and personality disorders using a multi-method multi informant approach. More specifically, we examined diagnosis made by treating clinician and independent expert clinical interviewer, using three different diagnostic systems (DSM symptom count, DSM-IV prototype diagnosis and empirically derived prototype diagnosis).

METHODS

A convenience sample of clinicians (N = 80) and patients (N = 170) from eight community mental health clinics in Israel participated in the study.

RESULTS

Our findings show fair to excellent interrater reliability for prototype dimensional diagnostic systems (ranged from 0.40 to 0.79) for most mood and anxiety disorders examined. Overall, dimensional diagnostic systems, yielded better interrater reliability for mood, anxiety and personality disorders, as compared with categorical diagnosis. There were no significant differences between dimensional systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide further support to the advantages of dimensional over categorical models in increasing reliability.

摘要

背景

DSM-IV 和 ICD-10 等著名的精神科诊断系统在临床实践中显示出较低的可靠性。精神障碍分类的替代方法是原型匹配。在当前的研究中,我们使用多方法多信息源方法检查了使用情绪、焦虑和人格障碍的评估的可靠性。更具体地说,我们使用三种不同的诊断系统(DSM 症状计数、DSM-IV 原型诊断和经验衍生的原型诊断)检查了治疗临床医生和独立专家临床访谈者做出的诊断。

方法

来自以色列 8 家社区心理健康诊所的临床医生(N=80)和患者(N=170)的便利样本参与了这项研究。

结果

我们的研究结果表明,对于大多数检查的情绪和焦虑障碍,原型维度诊断系统的评分者间可靠性为中等至良好(范围从 0.40 到 0.79)。总体而言,与分类诊断相比,维度诊断系统对情绪、焦虑和人格障碍的评分者间可靠性更好。维度系统之间没有显著差异。

结论

我们的研究结果进一步支持了维度模型在提高可靠性方面优于分类模型的优势。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验