Citation

Nielssen O, Elliott G, Large M. J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law 2010; 38(4): 516-523.

Affiliation

BSc (Med), MB, The Euroa Centre, The Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, NSW, 2031, Australia. mmbl@bigpond.com.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2010, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Publisher American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

21156911

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the extent of agreement on psychiatric diagnosis in written evidence provided by experts in serious criminal matters in Australia. We found good or very good inter-rater agreement on the diagnoses of acquired brain injury, schizophrenia-spectrum psychosis, substance-induced psychotic disorder, and intellectual disability. There was moderate agreement on the diagnosis of depressive and personality disorders. Agreement on anxiety disorders, in particular post-traumatic stress disorder, was poor. Agreement on the principal Axis I diagnosis was moderate, and there was a similar probability of agreement within pairs of experts engaged by the same side and those engaged by opposite sides. Concern about bias in expert psychiatric opinion in criminal cases appears to have been overstated. There was little evidence to suggest that experts' adversarial roles influenced their opinions on psychiatric diagnosis.

Language: en