Rosenman S J, Korten A E, Levings C T
Mental Health Services, Canberra Hospital, Australia.
J Psychiatr Res. 1997 Sep-Oct;31(5):581-92. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3956(97)00032-0.
The validity of the self-administered CIDI-Auto for detecting ICD-10 diagnoses was assessed in a study of 126 patients admitted to an acute psychiatry unit. A comparison was made between the level of agreement of the CIDI-Auto with a psychiatrist and that between two psychiatrists. The CIDI-Auto generated an average of 2.3 diagnoses per subject, and the psychiatrists 1.3. Agreement measured by overall agreement and by Kappas between the CIDI-Auto and the psychiatrist's principal diagnosis was poor, whereas agreement between psychiatrists was good. At the level of general diagnostic class (e.g. substance use disorder, schizophrenic disorder, mood disorder), agreement between CIDI-Auto and psychiatrist on principal diagnosis was poor, Kappa = 0.23, while agreement between psychiatrists was good, Kappa = 0.69. The findings indicate that the self-administered CIDI-Auto has poor validity measured against clinical diagnosis for hospitalised patients of acute psychiatric services. Poor validity of computer-based diagnosis limits the diagnostic utility of these methods in clinical situations. It also creates uncertainty of diagnostic findings in survey use.
在一项针对126名入住急性精神病科病房患者的研究中,评估了自动自填式复合性国际诊断交谈检查表(CIDI-Auto)检测国际疾病分类第十版(ICD-10)诊断的有效性。对CIDI-Auto与精神科医生之间的一致性水平以及两名精神科医生之间的一致性水平进行了比较。CIDI-Auto平均为每位受试者生成2.3个诊断,而精神科医生平均生成1.3个诊断。用总体一致性和卡帕值衡量,CIDI-Auto与精神科医生的主要诊断之间的一致性较差,而精神科医生之间的一致性良好。在一般诊断类别(如物质使用障碍、精神分裂症、心境障碍)层面,CIDI-Auto与精神科医生在主要诊断上的一致性较差,卡帕值=0.23,而精神科医生之间的一致性良好,卡帕值=0.69。研究结果表明,对于急性精神科服务的住院患者,与临床诊断相比,自动自填式CIDI-Auto的有效性较差。基于计算机的诊断有效性差限制了这些方法在临床情况下的诊断效用。这也在调查应用中造成了诊断结果的不确定性。