You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 17 No. 1, July 1967 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  ARTICLES
 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 HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (247)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Quantification of Agreement in Psychiatric Diagnosis

A New Approach

Robert L. Spitzer, MD; Jacob Cohen, MD; Joseph L. Fleiss, MS; Jean Endicott, PhD

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1967;17(1):83-87.

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 LAST few years have seen a number of studies dealing with the problem of the reliability of psychiatric diagnoses. What makes it difficult to assimilate the various findings is the lack of uniform methods for quantifying the salient features of the data. Thus, one study will report an overall rate of perfect agreement of 54%,1 while another will report an overall contingency coefficient of 0.714.2 Still another will report that, given that one diagnostician has made a particular diagnosis, the probability that another diagnostician will make the same diagnosis is 0.57.3

Furthermore, as generally used, all of these methods suffer from one or more deficiencies which are illustrated using the hypothetical data of Table 1. (1) Chance agreement is not taken into account, or equivalently, the base rates at which the various diagnoses are made are not used to qualify the agreement measure. . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]


Author Affiliations

New York

From the Research Division, Washington Heights Community Service, New York State Psychiatric Institute, and Biometrics Research, New York State Department of Mental Hygiene (Dr. Spitzer); New York University (Dr. Cohen); Department of Biostatistics, Columbia University School of Public Health (Mr. Fleiss); and Biometrics Research, New York State Department of Mental Hygiene (Dr. Endicott).


Footnotes

Submitted for publication Jan 24, 1967.

Reprint requests to 722 W 168th St, New York 10032 (Dr. Spitzer).



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





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1967 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.