Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:50:35.880Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changes in rating behaviour during the learning of a standardized psychiatric interview1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2009

M. Von Cranach  and
J. E. Cooper
M. Von Cranach
Affiliation:
From the U.S.-U.K. Diagnostic Project, Institute of Psychiatry, London
J. E. Cooper
Affiliation:
From the U.S.-U.K. Diagnostic Project, Institute of Psychiatry, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Synopsis

The rating behaviour of eight psychiatrists was studied while they learned to use a standardized psychiatric clinical interview schedule. Their progress was followed during live interviews, and also by their ratings of videotape interviews. Significant and consistent changes towards the standards of the teachers were demonstrated, as was a universal tendency to pass through a phase of rating at a higher level of abnormality than the standards they were trying to approach.

Type
Research Article
Information
Psychological Medicine , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , November 1972 , pp. 373 - 380
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Beck, A. T. (1962). Reliability of psychiatric diagnoses. I. A critique of systematic studies. American Journal of Psychiatry, 119, 210–216.Google Scholar
Cooper, J. E., Kendell, R. E., Gurland, B. J., Sartorios, N., and Farkas, T. (1969). Cross-national study of diagnosis of the mental disorders: some results from the first comparative investigation. American Journal of Psychiatry, 125 (Supplement, April issue), 21–29.Google Scholar
Cooper, J. E., Kendell, R. E., Gurland, B. J., Sharpe, L., Copeland, J. R. M., and Siman, R. (1972). Psychiatric Diagnosis in New York and London: A Comparative Study of Hospital Admissions. Maudsley Monograph No. 20. Oxford University Press: London.Google Scholar
Grosz, H. J., and Grossman, K. G. (1968). Clinicians' response style: a source of variation and bias in clinical judgments. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 73, 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendell, R. E., Everitt, B., Cooper, J. E., Sartorius, N., and David, M. E. (1968). The reliability of the ‘Present State Examination.’ Social Psychiatry, 3, 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreitman, N. (1961). The reliability of psychiatric diagnosis. Journal of Mental Science, 107, 876–886.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehmann, H. E., Ban, T. A., and Donald, M. (1965). Rating the rater: an experimental approach to the methodological problem of interrater agreement. Archives of General Psychiatry, 13, 67–75.Google Scholar
Sartorius, N., Brooke, E. M., and Lin, T. (1970). Reliability of psychiatric assessment in international research. In Psychiatric Epidemiology, proceedings of the International Symposium held at Aberdeen University, 1969. Edited by Hare, E. H. and Wing, J. K.. Oxford University Press: London.Google Scholar
Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. McGraw Hill: New York and London.Google Scholar
Spitzer, R. L., Endicott, J., Fliess, J. L., and Cohen, J. (1970). The Psychiatric Status Schedule: a technique for evaluating, psychopathology and impairment in role functioning. Archives of General Psychiatry, 23, 41–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spitzer, R. L., Fleiss, J. L., Burdock, E. I., and Hardesty, A. S. (1964). The Mental Status Schedule: rationale, reliability, and validity. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 5, 384–395.Google Scholar
Wing, J. K., Birley, J. L. T., Cooper, J. E., Graham, P., and Isaacs, A. D. (1967). Reliability of a procedure for measuring and classifying ‘Present Psychiatric State’. British Journal of Psychiatry, 113, 499–515.Google Scholar
Zubin, J. (1967). Classification of the behavior disorders. Annual Review of Psychology, 18, 373–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed