AIMS ratings-repeatability

J. A. Bergen; N. B. Carter; J. C. Craig; D. MacFarlane; E. F. Smith; P. J.V. Beumont

doi:10.1192/bjp.152.5.670

AIMS ratings-repeatability

J. A. Bergen, N. B. Carter, J. C. Craig, D. MacFarlane, E. F. Smith, P. J.V. Beumont

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In the present study, two raters, a psychologist and a nurse, each made five independent ratings of 30 different video-recorded patient-examinations. Having thus excluded patient fluctuation, individual-rater consistency and between-rater agreement over the 6 weeks of the study are examined. While between-rater agreement was apparently being maintained, mean AIMS scores steadily increased. In the hands of these raters, AIMS items 2 and 4 emerged as very reliable, while items 1, 6, and 7 showed high variability. Some patients appeared to be hard to rate. Differences between the study raters and the author JB highlight the issue: how reproducible is an AIMS rating?

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	670-673
Number of pages	4
Journal	British Journal of Psychiatry
Volume	152
Issue number	5
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.152.5.670
Publication status	Published - May 1988
Externally published	Yes

Access to Document

10.1192/bjp.152.5.670Licence: In Copyright

Cite this

@article{2ca78921498c4ed89b1384bf01818fae,

title = "AIMS ratings-repeatability",

abstract = "In the present study, two raters, a psychologist and a nurse, each made five independent ratings of 30 different video-recorded patient-examinations. Having thus excluded patient fluctuation, individual-rater consistency and between-rater agreement over the 6 weeks of the study are examined. While between-rater agreement was apparently being maintained, mean AIMS scores steadily increased. In the hands of these raters, AIMS items 2 and 4 emerged as very reliable, while items 1, 6, and 7 showed high variability. Some patients appeared to be hard to rate. Differences between the study raters and the author JB highlight the issue: how reproducible is an AIMS rating?",

author = "Bergen, {J. A.} and Carter, {N. B.} and Craig, {J. C.} and D. MacFarlane and Smith, {E. F.} and Beumont, {P. J.V.}",

year = "1988",

month = may,

doi = "10.1192/bjp.152.5.670",

language = "English",

volume = "152",

pages = "670--673",

journal = "British Journal of Psychiatry",

issn = "0007-1250",

publisher = "ROYAL COLLEGE OF PSYCHIATRISTS",

number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - AIMS ratings-repeatability

AU - Bergen, J. A.

AU - Carter, N. B.

AU - Craig, J. C.

AU - MacFarlane, D.

AU - Smith, E. F.

AU - Beumont, P. J.V.

PY - 1988/5

Y1 - 1988/5

N2 - In the present study, two raters, a psychologist and a nurse, each made five independent ratings of 30 different video-recorded patient-examinations. Having thus excluded patient fluctuation, individual-rater consistency and between-rater agreement over the 6 weeks of the study are examined. While between-rater agreement was apparently being maintained, mean AIMS scores steadily increased. In the hands of these raters, AIMS items 2 and 4 emerged as very reliable, while items 1, 6, and 7 showed high variability. Some patients appeared to be hard to rate. Differences between the study raters and the author JB highlight the issue: how reproducible is an AIMS rating?

AB - In the present study, two raters, a psychologist and a nurse, each made five independent ratings of 30 different video-recorded patient-examinations. Having thus excluded patient fluctuation, individual-rater consistency and between-rater agreement over the 6 weeks of the study are examined. While between-rater agreement was apparently being maintained, mean AIMS scores steadily increased. In the hands of these raters, AIMS items 2 and 4 emerged as very reliable, while items 1, 6, and 7 showed high variability. Some patients appeared to be hard to rate. Differences between the study raters and the author JB highlight the issue: how reproducible is an AIMS rating?

U2 - 10.1192/bjp.152.5.670

DO - 10.1192/bjp.152.5.670

M3 - Article

VL - 152

SP - 670

EP - 673

JO - British Journal of Psychiatry

JF - British Journal of Psychiatry

SN - 0007-1250

IS - 5

ER -

AIMS ratings-repeatability

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this