Segal S P, Watson M A, Goldfinger S M, Averbuck D S
Mental Health and Social Welfare Research Group, School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley 94720.
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1988 Aug;45(8):748-52. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1988.01800320064008.
Critics of the dangerousness standard for civil commitment contend that there is no professional standard for the evaluation of dangerousness. We used Three Ratings of Involuntary Admissibility, a reliable index of behavioral indicators of danger to self, danger to others, and grave disability, and found that when combined into weighted patterns these indicators predicted disposition decisions of 70 clinicians in five psychiatric emergency rooms over 251 cases. A concurrent measure of perceived dangerousness, Clinician's Global Ratings of patients on these criteria, yielded similar results. We conclude that clinicians in California psychiatric emergency rooms apply a shared concept of dangerousness that can be described in behavioral terms.
对民事收容危险性标准的批评者认为，不存在评估危险性的专业标准。我们使用了非自愿收容的三项评级，这是一个关于对自我危险、对他人危险和严重残疾行为指标的可靠指数，并发现当这些指标组合成加权模式时，它们预测了五个精神科急诊室的70名临床医生对251例病例的处置决定。对感知危险性的一项并行测量，即临床医生根据这些标准对患者的总体评级，也得出了类似的结果。我们得出结论，加利福尼亚精神科急诊室的临床医生应用了一种可以用行为术语描述的共同危险性概念。
