Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 449

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reliability Studies of Psychiatric Diagnosis: Theory and Practice

Grove, William M.·1981·Archives of General Psychiatry

Abstract

The existing literature on the reliability of psychiatric diagnosis falls into two periods, the earlier reporting low reliability and the latter reporting much higher figures. The reasons for this trend are examined in the context of a discussion of the design of diagnostic reliability studies. The problems of research design and execution in studies of diagnostic reliability are reviewed, and statistical problems are examined. Solutions to many of these problems ae suggested, including recommendations of appropriate reliability coefficients and data analyses.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archpsyc.1981.01780290042004

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Grove, W. M.
Venue
Archives of General Psychiatry
Published
1981-04-01
Volume
38
Issue
4
Pages
408
ISSN
0003-990X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2144489542
Cited by
449
References
2
FWCI
44.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.