Cited by 135Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsEthics and bioethics in healthcareEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare

Reliability of mental capacity assessments in psychiatric in-patients

Open access
Cairns, Ruth, Maddock, Clementine, Buchanan, Alec, David, Anthony S., Hayward, Peter, Richardson, Genevra, Szmukler, George, Hotopf, Matthew·2005·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous work on the reliability of mental capacity assessments in patients with psychiatric illness has been limited. AIMS: To describe the interrater reliability of two independent assessments of capacity to consent to treatment, as well as assessments made by a panel of clinicians based on the same interview. METHOD: Fifty-five patients were interviewed by two interviewers 1-7 days apart and a binary (yes/no) capacity judgement was made, guided by the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T). Four senior clinicians used transcripts of the interviews to judge capacity. RESULTS: There was excellent agreement between the two interviewers for capacity judgements made at separate interviews (kappa=0.82). A high level of agreement was seen between senior clinicians for capacity judgements of the same interview (mean kappa=0.84). CONCLUSIONS: In combination with a clinical interview, the MacCAT-T can be used to produce highly reliable judgements of capacity.

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 · 10.1192/bjp.187.4.372

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Capacity assessments for treatment decisions have strong test-retest reliability.

    “As noted by Cairns et al., 2005 andRaymont et al., 2007, the latter also suggests strong test-retest reliability.”

    From Decision making capacity for treatment in psychiatric inpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2024) · cites this paper as Cairns et al., 2005

    The Interrater agreements section reports near-perfect agreement (κ=0.82) for treatment-capacity judgments from separate interviews of the same patients. The paper’s limitations describe this measure as a hybrid of interrater and test–retest reliability, not a measure of pure test–retest reliability. In the citing sentence, “the latter” appears to assign the test–retest point to Raymont et al., rather than Cairns et al. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. 2003, Stata Release 8.0
  2. 2004, Draft Mental Health Bill
  3. 2003, Draft Mental Incapacity Bill
  4. 2002, Draft Mental Health Bill
  5. 1993, The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Diagnostic Criteria for Research

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cairns, R., Maddock, C., Buchanan, A., David, A. S., Hayward, P., Richardson, G., Szmukler, G., & Hotopf, M.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • Maudsley Hospital (GB)
  • University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Hotopf, Matthew
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2005-10
Volume
187
Issue
4
Pages
372-378
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2101603047
Cited by
135
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
FWCI
9.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Keywords
mental capacity assessment, inter-rater reliability, consent to treatment, psychiatric inpatients, clinical interview, clinician agreement, capacity to consent
MeSH terms
Adult, Mental Disorders, Decision Making, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Informed Consent, Interview, Psychological, Male, Patient Care Team, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Mental Competency

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