Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T14:31:55.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Reliability and Validity of the Proposed Axis V (Disabilities) of ICD–10

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Tewfik K. Daradkeh  and
A. Saad
Tewfik K. Daradkeh*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, UAE University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
A. Saad
Affiliation:
Al Ain Hospital, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
*
Prof. T. K. Daradkeh, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, UAE University, PO Box 17666, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of the newly proposed axis V (disabilities) of ICD-10.

Method

Eighty-six acutely ill men and women were prospectively recruited from the Al Ain psychiatric units, UAE. Both versions of ICD–10, the Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines and the Diagnostic Criteria for Research (DCR) were used for coding axis I psychiatric diagnosis and its grade of severity; the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule was used to assess disabilities.

Results

Inter-rater reliability of the DAS items ranged from moderate to good, and axis V ratings correctly predicted 84% of the observed classification on axis I.

Conclusion

Axis V is a valid measure of disabilities, but is limited by its modest reliability.

British Journal of Psychiatry (1994), 165, 683–685

Type
Short papers
Information
The British Journal of Psychiatry , Volume 165 , Issue 5 , November 1994 , pp. 683 - 685
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1994 

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

American Psychiatric Association (1980) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd edn, (DSM-III). Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V. (1976) Assessing inter-rater reliability for rating scales: resolving basic issues. British Journal of Psychiatry, 129, 452–456.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.Google Scholar
Daradkeh, K. T. & Saad, A. (1993) The reliability of the ICD-10 psychiatric diagnoses. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 47, 369–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, H. H., Skodol, E. A. & Lave, R. T. (1992) Revising axis V for DSM-IV: a review of measures of social functioning. American Journal of Psychiatry, 149, 1148–1156.Google Scholar
Mezzich, J. E. (1988) On developing a psychiatric multiaxial schema. British Journal of Psychiatry, 152 (suppl. 1), 38–42.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (1988) WHO Psychiatric Disability Assessment Schedule. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (1990a) International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10). Draft of Chapter V, Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (1990b) International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision. Draft of Chapter V, Mental and Behavioural Disorders, Diagnostic Criteria for Research. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (1992) The ICD–10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.