Philipp M, Maier W
Psychopathology. 1986;19(5):236-43. doi: 10.1159/000284465.
The growing application of the polydiagnostic approach makes it necessary to examine the methodological problems associated with the simultaneous assessment of multiple competing diagnoses. This paper contrasts the method of nonstandardized consecutive judgement of nonintegrated criteria lists with the method of a structured polydiagnostic interview with integrated criteria lists. The comparison of two polydiagnostic studies using both methods of assessment confirms that the unstructured use of nonintegrated and consecutively judged criteria lists is biased by a halo effect. This halo effect leads to a reduction of differences between the classifications of competing operational diagnoses and influences the type of patient distribution along the diagnostic dimension. This finding is interpreted as an argument to switch over to integrated criteria lists applied on the basis of an unstructured clinical examination or a structured interview.
多诊断方法应用的不断增加使得有必要审视与同时评估多个相互竞争的诊断相关的方法学问题。本文将非标准化连续判断非整合标准列表的方法与采用整合标准列表的结构化多诊断访谈方法进行了对比。对两项使用这两种评估方法的多诊断研究的比较证实，非整合且连续判断的标准列表的非结构化使用受到光环效应的影响而产生偏差。这种光环效应导致相互竞争的操作性诊断分类之间的差异减小，并影响患者在诊断维度上的分布类型。这一发现被解释为转而采用基于非结构化临床检查或结构化访谈应用的整合标准列表的一个论据。
