Abstract
45 Ph.D. clinicians, with at least 4 yr. post-doctoral clinical experience, made a diagnostic judgment from the C-V-S Intelligence Scale protocols of 10 Ss in normal, retardate, organic, process, and reactive schizophrenic categories (n = 50), with judges grouped on the basis of number of subtests (1, 2, or all 3) and type of subtest information (various combinations of C, V, and S) used. Correct diagnoses (validity) using 1, 2, or 3 subtests significantly exceeded chance. Contrary to the hypothesized relationship, diagnostic accuracy did not increase when the number of subtests to be judged was increased. Inter-judge agreement (reliability) increased significantly as a function of increasing information. Methodological factors in studies assessing validity and reliability of clinical judgment were cited.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
