The rater applied performance scale: development and reliability
Abstract
Previous studies of rater performance and interrater reliability have used passive scoring tasks such as rating patients from a videotaped interview. Little is known, however, about how well raters conduct assessments on real patients or how reliably they apply scoring criteria during actual assessment sessions. With growing recognition of the importance of monitoring and review of actual evaluation sessions, there is need for a systematic approach to quantify raters' applied performance. The Rater Applied Performance Scale (RAPS) measures six dimensions of rater performance (adherence, follow-up, clarification, neutrality, rapport, and accuracy) based on reviews of audiotaped or videotaped assessment sessions or on live monitoring of assessment sessions. We tested this new scale by having two reviewers rate 20 Hamilton Depression Scale rating sessions ascertained from a multi-site depression trial. We found good internal consistency for the RAPS. Interrater (i.e. inter-reviewer) reliability was satisfactory for RAPS total score ratings. In addition, RAPS ratings correlated with quantitative measures of scoring accuracy based on independent expert ratings. Preliminary psychometric data suggest that the RAPS may be a valuable tool for quantifying the performance of clinical raters. Potential applications of the RAPS are considered.
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?
Trainers use the Rater Applied Performance Scale (RAPS) to objectively rate administrator performance, and a score of 3 or higher on a 4-point Likert scale indicates good performance and certification.
“Trainers utilize a Rater Applied Performance Scale (RAPS) (52), which has been applied to neuropsychological assessment training, to objectively rate the administrator’s performance; a score of 3 or higher on a 4-point Likert scale indicates a “good” performance and subsequent certification.”
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 15 · Cited by 31
- Authors
- Lipsitz, J., Kobak, K., Feiger, A., Sikich, D., Moroz, G., & Engelhard, A.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
- Dean Foundation (IN)
- Corresponding author
- Lipsitz, Joshua
- ORCID
- Lipsitz, Joshua
- Venue
- Psychiatry Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2004-06
- Volume
- 127
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 147-155
- ISSN
- 0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1968818226
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4
- FWCI
- 6.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (N43MH12049)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Keywords
- inter-rater reliability, clinical rating, scoring accuracy, rapport, neutrality, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, psychometric validation
- MeSH terms
- Major Depressive Disorder, Depressive Disorder, Major, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Videotape Recording, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation
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
