A Comparison of DSM-II and DSM-III in the Diagnosis of Childhood Psychiatric Disorders: II. Interrater Agreement
Abstract
A case-history format was utilized to compare interrater agreement on childhood and adolescent psychiatric disorders, using DSM-II and DSM-III. The average interrater agreement was 57% for DSM-II and 54% for axis I (clinical psychiatric syndrome) of DSM-III. There was high agreement in both systems on cases of psychosis, conduct disorder, hyperactivity, and mental retardation, with DSM-III appearing slightly better. There was noteworthy interrater disagreement in both systems for "anxiety" disorders, complex cases, and in the subtyping of depression. Overall, the reliability of DSM-III appears to be good and is comparable with that of DSM-II and other classification systems of childhood psychiatric disorders.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Only one study restricted to childhood disorders has made a direct comparison (of DSM-II and DSM-III), showing only a slight improvement in reliability.
“With regard to degree of operationalization, it is generally assumed that a strict criteria-based approach leads to a greater reliability, but only one study restricted to childhood disorders has made a direct comparison (of DSM-II and DSM-III), showing only a slight improvement in reliability 93 .”
From An organization‐ and category‐level comparison of diagnostic requirements for mental disorders in <scp>ICD</scp> ‐11 and <scp>DSM</scp> ‐5 (2021) · cites this paper as [93]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
First, M. B., Gaebel, W., Maj, M., Stein, D. J., Kogan, C. S., Saunders, J. B., Poznyak, V. B., Gureje, O., Lewis‐Fernández, R., Maercker, A., et al. (2021) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.20825 · Cited by 236 · see citing works
Klin, A., Lang, J., Cicchetti, D. V., & Volkmar, F. R. (2000) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1023/a:1005415823867 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
Reliability of Child Diagnosis in a Hispanic Sample
CANINO, G. J., BIRD, H. R., RUBIO-STIPEC, M., WOODBURY, M. A., RIBERA, J. C., HUERTAS, S. E., & SESMAN, M. J. (1987) · Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry · doi:10.1097/00004583-198707000-00018 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mattison, R.
- Corresponding author
- Mattison, Richard
- ORCID
- Mattison, Richard
- Venue
- Archives of General Psychiatry
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1979-10-01
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1217
- ISSN
- 0003-990X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2061155815
- Cited by
- 94
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2021: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 9.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Archives of General Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
- Keywords
- DSM-II, DSM-III, diagnostic classification, child psychopathology, adolescent mental disorders, interobserver agreement, diagnostic reliability, anxiety disorders, depression subtyping, conduct disorder, hyperactivity, psychosis, intellectual disability
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Anxiety, Attention, Mental Disorders, Brain Diseases, Child, Child Behavior Disorders, Depression, Diagnosis, Differential, Humans, Manuals as Topic, Intellectual Disability, Psychotic Disorders
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
