Summary
Among the many challenges in arriving at a valid psychiatric diagnosis are the variations in biologic, genetic/ epigenetic, psychological, cognitive, and behavioral attributes of the subject population: inter-subject variability. Study of nosologic classification in psychiatry has centered primarily on inter-diagnostician variability, reliability, while neglecting inter-subject variation. We present an analysis of the diagnostic process that considers variability not only in the diagnosticians but also the subjects. The conditions for which the percent agreement statistic is the preferred measure of agreement is detailed for both a general case as well as one for which the inter-subject variation is explicitly considered. Specifics are given as to the non-intuitive fact that the smaller the inter-subject variability, the poorer can be the agreement, suggesting that an agreement statistic alone may be misleading depending on the nature of the subject population. Existing agreement statistics do not measure inter-diagnostician reliability but the agreement between two diagnosticians influenced by the inter-subject variation.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
no external funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
none
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos