This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on Web of Science (2)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

R. D. CODDINGTON, MD; D. R. OFFORD, MD

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1967;16(1):48-55.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

THE PROBLEM of diagnosis has been a difficult one in child psychiatry for many years, or, in fact, throughout the history of child psychiatry. It is the purpose of this paper to show thata clinical appraisal of a child is not as unreliable as one would Surmise when the issue is judged only from the point of view of diagnosis. In other words, the authors contend that two child psychiatrists looking at the same child will describe him under very different diagnostic labels, but will arrive at judgment of the presence or absence and the severity of illness in some sort of uniform way. Further, it is contended that despite training in different centers and in different parts of the country, similarity of thought exists. If such similarity of thought exists, on what is it based.? What do we look at as we evaluate a child.? We . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
GAINESVILLE, FLA

From the Department of Psychiatry, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Footnotes
Submitted for publication May 17, 1966.

Read in part before the annual meeting of the Southern Psychiatric Association, Oct 5, 1965, Ponte Verde, Fla.

Reprint requests to Dept of Psychiatry, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla 32601 (Dr. Coddington).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?