Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 438

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reliability and Validity of DSM-IV Axis V

Hilsenroth, Mark J., Ackerman, Steven J., Blagys, Matthew D., Baumann, Becky D., Baity, Matthew R., Smith, Steven R., Price, Jennifer L., Smith, Candy L., Heindselman, Tracy L., Mount, Mollie K., Holdwick, Daniel J.·2000·American Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The authors investigated the reliability and convergent and discriminant validity of the DSM-IV Global Assessment of Functioning Scale and two experimental DSM-IV axis V global rating scales, the Global Assessment of Relational Functioning Scale and the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale. METHOD: Forty-four patients admitted to a university-based outpatient community clinic were rated by trained clinicians on the three DSM-IV axis V scales. Patients also completed self-report measures of DSM-IV symptoms as well as measures of relational, social, and occupational functioning. RESULTS: The Global Assessment of Functioning Scale, Global Assessment of Relational Functioning Scale, and Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale all exhibited very high levels of interrater reliability. Factor analysis revealed that the Global Assessment of Relational Functioning Scale and the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale are each more related to the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale individually than they are to each other. The Global Assessment of Functioning Scale was significantly related to concurrent patient responses on the SCL-90-R global severity index. The Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale was significantly related to concurrent patient responses on the SCL-90-R global severity index and to a greater degree with both the Social Adjustment Scale global score and the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems total score. Although the Global Assessment of Relational Functioning Scale was not significantly related to any of the three self-report measures, it was related to the presence of clinician-rated axis II pathology. CONCLUSIONS: The three axis V scales can be scored reliably. The Global Assessment of Relational Functioning Scale and the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale evaluate different constructs. These findings support the validity of the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale as a scale of global psychopathology; the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale as a measure of problems in social, occupational, and interpersonal functioning; and the Global Assessment of Relational Functioning Scale as an index of personality pathology. The authors discuss further refinement and use of the three axis V measures in treatment research.

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 · 10.1176/appi.ajp.157.11.1858

Cites

12 of 12 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 12 references

Cited by

See all 438

Metadata

Authors
Hilsenroth, M. J., Ackerman, S. J., Blagys, M. D., Baumann, B. D., Baity, M. R., Smith, S. R., Price, J. L., Smith, C. L., Heindselman, T. L., Mount, M. K., & Holdwick, D. J.
Venue
American Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2000-11-01
Volume
157
Issue
11
Pages
1858-1863
ISSN
  • 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-7228
OpenAlex
W2115044653
Cited by
438
References
12
FWCI
6.75
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reliability and Validity of DSM-IV Axis V. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1176/appi.ajp.157.11.1858
The paper
Hilsenroth, M. J., Ackerman, S. J., Blagys, M. D., Baumann, B. D., Baity, M. R., Smith, S. R., Price, J. L., Smith, C. L., Heindselman, T. L., Mount, M. K., & Holdwick, D. J. (2000). Reliability and Validity of DSM-IV Axis V. American Journal of Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.157.11.1858

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.