One hundred and nine adults were screened in the community using the abridged version of the CIDI (CIDIS).
The subjects comprised DSM-III-R current cases (N=48), lifetime cases (N=31) and non-cases (N=30).
The interviews with the 109 subjects were conducted by one of two pairs of clinicians and videotaped.
Each interviewer-pair included a psychiatrist and a clinical psychologist.
They rated the community version of the Needs for Care (NFCAS-C) by consensus.
The other pair of judges then viewed the video and rated the NFCAS-C independently.
The agreement on overall needs was excellent (kappa=0.75), and very good for four of the seven specific sections (from kappa=0.61 to 0.81).
One section could not be rated because of low prevalence, and agreement was less good for the remaining two sections.
Agreement was good on specific interventions (medication, kappa=0.60 ; specific psychotherapy, kappa=0.55), but poor on non-specific interventions.
The majority of disagreements were due to differences in clinical judgement rather than to technical errors.
A new instruction manual has been produced and should help training as well as stabilizing reliability.
In devising reliable and valid instruments based on clinical judgement, a balance must be achieved between enhancing reliability with more precise rules and constraining clinical judgement so tightly that validity is lost.
Mots-clés Pascal : Besoin, Service santé, Soin, Traitement, Echelle évaluation, Fidélité test, Accord interjuge, Psychométrie, Homme, Santé publique, MRC Needs for Care Assessment Schedule Bebbington et al
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Need, Health service, Care, Treatment, Evaluation scale, Test reliability, Interrater agreement, Psychometrics, Human
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 96-0175861
Code Inist : 002B18B01. Création : 199608.