Lobbestael, Leurgans and Arntz 2011

Question 1

aim

Answer 1

investigate the reliability of diagnosis using DSM IV with 151 people (patients and not patients)

Question 2

sample

Answer 2

151 ppl (patients i not patients)

Question 3

procedure

Answer 3

-Original clinical interviews were audio-taped

• The interviews were assessed by another psychiatrist who was clueless about the diagnosis

Question 4

results

Answer 4

Higher reliability for personality disorders

71% rate of reliability in diagnosis of major depression

84% rate of reliability in personality disorders

Shows that a manual like DSM IV ensures that clinicians are more in agreement on a diagnosis

Reliable doesn’t mean valid

Question 5

conclusion

Answer 5

A diagnostic criteria like the DSM IV, ensures that clinicians are more in agreement on a diagnosis. But even if the diagnosis is reliable, that does not necessarily mean that it is valid.

Question 6

weaknesses

Answer 6

They only used audiotapes (the non verbal behaviour might have played a role in the first diagnosis) (may lack important non verbal data)

Low ecological validity

Question 7

strengths

Answer 7

Audiotapes (the appearance, non verbal behaviour of the participant was not taken into account)

Higher validity, reduces chances of bias bc of a single blind procedure (the second psychiatrist was unaware of the diagnosis made by the 1st psychologist)