Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T12:54:49.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Quantification of Diagnostic Differentiae

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2018

G. A. Foulds
G. A. Foulds*
Affiliation:
Runwell Hospital, Wickford, Essex; University College, University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The more recent and better designed studies of the reliability of psychiatric diagnosis (Schmidt and Fonda, 1956; Norris, 1959; Kreitman, 1961; Kreitman et al. 1961) suggest that the earlier pessimism may not be entirely justified. At the present time it seems safest to conclude that there are some states that some psychiatrists can diagnose reasonably reliably under some conditions. Nevertheless, even if psychiatrists could be shown to be highly reliable under optimal conditions, their diagnoses could only serve as the criterion by which to develop some more objective, public and quantitative means of classification, since the optimal conditions cannot readily be met in routine practice. It is desirable that any such quantitative scale should be reasonably compatible with existing psychiatric classification. As Eysenck (1960) has argued, “the degree of correspondence observed is of some interest in making possible the translation of experimental findings from one field to the other…. Even if there were no correspondence at all with psychiatric diagnostic classifications, this would not in any way invalidate the empirical findings”.

Type
Methodology
Information
Journal of Mental Science , Volume 108 , Issue 455 , July 1962 , pp. 389 - 405
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1962 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Dalbiez, R. (1941). Psychoanalytic Method and the Doctrine of Freud, Vol. II. London: Longmans, Green & Co.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1960). Handbook of Abnormal Psychology. London: Pitman Medical Publishing Co. Ltd. Google Scholar
Foulds, G. A., Caine, T. M. and Creasy, M. A. (1960). “Aspects of Extra- and Intropunitive expression in mental illness”, J. Ment. Sci., 106, 599–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreitman, N. (1961). “The reliability of psychiatric diagnosis”, J. Ment. Sci., 107, 876–886.Google Scholar
Idem , Sainsbury, P., Morrissey, J., Towers, J. and Scrivener, J. (1961). “The reliability of psychiatric assessment: an analysis”, J. Ment. Sci., 107, 887–908.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus Statistical Prediction. Minneapolis: University Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Norris, V. (1959). Mental Illness in London, 1959. Maudsley Monograph No. 6. London: Chapman & Hall Ltd. Google Scholar
Schmidt, K. O. and Fonda, C. P. (1956). “The reliability of psychiatric diagnosis: a new look”, J. Abnorm. & Soc. Psychol., 52, 262–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1960). Reason in Ethics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.