Keller M B, Lavori P W, Andreasen N C, Grove W M, Shapiro R W, Scheftner W, McDonald-Scott P
J Psychiatr Res. 1981;16(4):213-27. doi: 10.1016/0022-3956(81)90016-9.
In a test-retest reliability study involving 25 psychiatric patients and 5 professional raters we demonstrate that research clinicians from collaborating institutions are able to achieve good reliability for most areas of the SADS and RDC when assessing psychiatrically ill patients under interview conditions that provide even less data than ideally obtained in the practice of clinical research. We expect greater reliability in the actual use of the SADS/RDC on most items and diagnoses since the SADS is intended to be used in conjunction with information obtained from relatives, friends, and treatment staff to confirm and clarify the judgements made by the raters on the patient interviews. Moreover, we are reassured that the diagnosis of schizo-affective disorders and schizophrenia is protected from the item unreliability found with specific delusions and hallucinations. Similarly, the difficulties in determining the episodic and chronic nature of the present episode does not substantially interfere with making an RDC diagnosis of the current condition. A complex diagnostic interview system such as the SADS and RDC requires multiple complementary techniques to determine reliability. We find that establishing explicit procedures for raters to discuss and categorize the reasons for their disagreements on individual items and diagnoses provides valuable data for understanding reliability problems. This has helped us to identify specific areas of the interview and criteria that require further clarification and more intensive rater training to improve ratings made by interviewers.
在一项涉及25名精神病患者和5名专业评估者的重测信度研究中,我们证明,来自合作机构的研究临床医生在访谈条件下评估精神病患者时,即使所获数据比临床研究实际理想获得的数据更少,对于情感障碍和精神分裂症诊断统计手册(SADS)及研究诊断标准(RDC)的大多数领域仍能实现良好的信度。我们预计,在SADS/RDC的实际使用中,大多数项目和诊断的信度会更高,因为SADS旨在与从亲属、朋友和治疗人员那里获得的信息结合使用,以确认和澄清评估者对患者访谈所做的判断。此外,我们放心的是,精神分裂症的诊断不受特定妄想和幻觉项目信度低的影响。同样,确定本次发作是发作性还是慢性的困难,并不会实质性地干扰对当前状况做出RDC诊断。像SADS和RDC这样复杂的诊断访谈系统需要多种互补技术来确定信度。我们发现,为评估者建立明确的程序,以便他们讨论并对在个别项目和诊断上的分歧原因进行分类,能为理解信度问题提供有价值的数据。这有助于我们确定访谈的具体领域和标准,这些领域和标准需要进一步澄清,并需要对评估者进行更深入的培训,以提高访谈者的评分。