Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,618

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R (SCID): II. Multisite Test-Retest Reliability

Williams, Janet B. W.·1992·Archives of General Psychiatry
DOI 10.1001/archpsyc.1992.01820080038006
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A test-retest reliability study of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R was conducted on 592 subjects in four patient and two nonpatient sites in this country as well as one patient site in Germany. For most of the major categories, kappa s for current and lifetime diagnoses in the patient samples were above .60, with an overall weighted kappa of .61 for current and .68 for lifetime diagnoses. For the nonpatients, however, agreement was considerably lower, with a mean kappa of .37 for current and .51 for lifetime diagnoses. These values for the patient and nonpatient samples are roughly comparable to those obtained with other structured diagnostic instruments. Sources of diagnostic disagreement, such as inadequate training of interviewers, information variance, and low base rates for many disorders, are discussed.

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.1992.01820080038006

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Williams, J. B. W.
Venue
Archives of General Psychiatry
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
1992-08-01
Volume
49
Issue
8
Pages
630
ISSN
0003-990X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/archpsyc.1992.01820080038006
OpenAlex
W2148412563
Cited by
1,618
References
3
FWCI
68.94
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.