Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare two methods to conduct CGAS rater training. A total of 648 raters were randomized to
training (CD or seminar), and rated five cases before and 12 months after training. The ICC at baseline/end of study was 0.71/0.78
(seminar), 0.76/0.78 (CD), and 0.67/0.79 (comparison). There were no differences in training effect in terms of agreement
with expert ratings, which speaks in favor of using the less resource-demanding CD. However, the effect was modest in both
groups, and untrained comparison group improved of the same order of magnitude, which proposes more extensive training.
training (CD or seminar), and rated five cases before and 12 months after training. The ICC at baseline/end of study was 0.71/0.78
(seminar), 0.76/0.78 (CD), and 0.67/0.79 (comparison). There were no differences in training effect in terms of agreement
with expert ratings, which speaks in favor of using the less resource-demanding CD. However, the effect was modest in both
groups, and untrained comparison group improved of the same order of magnitude, which proposes more extensive training.
- Content Type Journal Article
- Pages 1-8
- DOI 10.1007/s10488-011-0369-5
- Authors
- Anna Lundh, Section of Psychiatry, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, BUP-divisionen, PO Box 17564, SE-11891 Stockholm, Sweden
- Jan Kowalski, JK Biostatistics, Stockholm, Sweden
- Carl Johan Sundberg, Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Mikael Landén, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, The Sahlgrenska Academy at Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Journal Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research
- Online ISSN 1573-3289
- Print ISSN 0894-587X