JAAPL
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 36:4:515-521 (2008)
Copyright © 2008 by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Large, M. M.
Right arrow Articles by Nielssen, O.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Large, M. M.
Right arrow Articles by Nielssen, O.

REGULAR ARTICLE

Factors Associated With Agreement Between Experts in Evidence About Psychiatric Injury

Matthew M. Large, BSc (Med), MB, BS and Olav Nielssen, MB, BS

Dr. Large is in Private Practice, Sydney, Australia. Dr. Nielssen is in Private Practice, Sydney, and is a Psychiatrist, Clinical Research Unit for Anxiety Disorders, School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales, St. Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, Australia. Address correspondence to: Matthew M. Large, BSc (med), MB, BS, PO Box 110, Double Bay, 1360, NSW, Australia. E-mail: mmbl{at}bigpond.com

Psychiatrists and psychologists acting as expert witnesses in court cases are often accused of bias or error. We examined the level of agreement and factors influencing agreement between expert reports admitted into evidence during adversarial civil proceedings. The inter-rater reliability of the psychiatric diagnosis was examined in 51 pairs of civil medicolegal reports written by experts engaged by the same side and 97 pairs of experts engaged by opposite sides. Reports written by experts engaged by the same adversarial side had good agreement about the presence of a mental disorder ({kappa} = .74) but had only fair agreement about the specific psychiatric diagnosis (average {kappa} = .31). Reports written by experts engaged by opposing adversarial sides had poor agreement about the presence of any mental disorder and also the specific psychiatric diagnosis. Experts were more likely to agree about the presence of a mental disorder if the plaintiff was involved in a fatal accident. The agreement of treating doctors and experts was similar to that of pairs of experts.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.