{"title":"A Report on the Ratings of Psychiatrists Using the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale: Some Australian Data","authors":"James Athanasou","doi":"10.32388/wcwn91","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The _Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale _has been used in Australia for over 20 years to determine a compensable proportion for patients with a personal injury. This study examined the records of the ratings of 30 psychiatrists on the scale. Psychological injury versus other injury was distinguished by the_ PIRS_. Correlations between the aggregate score, the median class and the overall percentage impairment rating were all high (.819 to.960). The distribution of ratings on each of the six sub-functions varied markedly. There was a preponderance of category 3 ratings and the distribution of overall percentage impairment was skewed negatively. The coefficient alpha based on the aggregate score was.731. Independent ratings (N=15) of the same patients, however, showed substantial concurrent stability of judgements.\n","PeriodicalId":503632,"journal":{"name":"Qeios","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qeios","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32388/wcwn91","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The _Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale _has been used in Australia for over 20 years to determine a compensable proportion for patients with a personal injury. This study examined the records of the ratings of 30 psychiatrists on the scale. Psychological injury versus other injury was distinguished by the_ PIRS_. Correlations between the aggregate score, the median class and the overall percentage impairment rating were all high (.819 to.960). The distribution of ratings on each of the six sub-functions varied markedly. There was a preponderance of category 3 ratings and the distribution of overall percentage impairment was skewed negatively. The coefficient alpha based on the aggregate score was.731. Independent ratings (N=15) of the same patients, however, showed substantial concurrent stability of judgements.