Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • AAPL

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
  • AAPL
  • Alerts
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
OtherREGULAR ARTICLE

Factors Associated With Agreement Between Experts in Evidence About Psychiatric Injury

Matthew M. Large and Olav Nielssen
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online December 2008, 36 (4) 515-521;
Matthew M. Large
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Olav Nielssen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    Table 1

    Kappa Statistics for Common Psychiatric Diagnoses After Motor Vehicle Accidents

    Specific Psychiatric DiagnosisDiagnosis in Any of 148 Report Pairs n (%*)κ for Opposing Adversarial Role n = 97 Pairsκ for Same Adversarial Role n = 51 pairs†
    Traumatic brain injury36 (12).31.61
    Post-traumatic stress disorder103 (35).27.26
    Depressive disorders‡88 (30)−.12.29
    Other anxiety disorders61 (21)−.10.38
    Pain-related disorder24 (8).26.43
    Adjustment disorder25 (8).18.19
    Pathological grief11 (4).18.00
    Any mental disorder (includes others, n = 5)250 (84).09.74
    Average κ for all disorders−.14.31
    • * Total exceeds 100% due to multiple diagnoses.

    • † Six of 51 report pairs lacked statistical independence. An analysis that excluded all the report pairs from claims with three reports from the same side found a minimally changed agreement for traumatic brain injury (κ = .62), post traumatic stress disorder (κ = .31), depression (κ = .34), other anxiety disorders (κ = .34), and any mental disorder (κ = .68).

    • ‡ Major depression, dysthymia and other depressive diagnoses.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Variables in the Principal Diagnosis Groups

    Independent VariablesNo Agreement n = 30Agree About Mental Disorder n = 65Agree on Principal Diagnosis n = 53p
    Report writer factors
        Same expert status, n (%)16 (53)39 (69)30 (57)χ2=.40.82
        Same adversarial side, n (%)3 (10)24 (37)24 (45)χ2=10.87.004
        Same profession, n (%)21 (70)37 (57)32 (60)χ2=1.48.48
    Plaintiff factors
        Male, n (%)18 (60)38 (58)27 (51)χ2=1.93.75
        Age, mean years (SD)38.9 (7.3)34.3 (7.0)32.6 (8.1)F=1.72.18
        IS score, median (IQR)12 (16)12 (21)12 (21)KW=.70.70
        Fatal accident, n (%)0 (0)16 (25)14 (26)χ2=9.62.008
    • View popup
    Table 3

    GEE Examining Factors Associated With Agreement Between Experts

    VariableBSE95% Wald CIWald χ2dfp
    Agreement about the presence of mental disorder
        Intercept−4.8071.262−7.281 to −2.33214.4941.000
        Same adversarial side2.157.862.468 to 3.8466.2681.012
        Fatal accident*1.835.9260.20 to 3.6503.9271.048
    Agreement about the principal psychiatric diagnosis
        Intercept−.253.4167−1.070 to .564.3681.544
        Same adversarial side.989.447.112 to 1.8654.8821.027
        Fatal accident−.168.424−1.00 to .663.1581.691
    • * A conservative estimate of fatal accidents was calculated by the inclusion of a false positive in the group with no agreement about mental disorder, to prevent having a zero in the denominator.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online: 36 (4)
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
Vol. 36, Issue 4
December 2008
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in recommending The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law site.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Factors Associated With Agreement Between Experts in Evidence About Psychiatric Injury
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Factors Associated With Agreement Between Experts in Evidence About Psychiatric Injury
Matthew M. Large, Olav Nielssen
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Dec 2008, 36 (4) 515-521;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Factors Associated With Agreement Between Experts in Evidence About Psychiatric Injury
Matthew M. Large, Olav Nielssen
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Dec 2008, 36 (4) 515-521;
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Conclusions
    • Acknowledgments
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • A Forensic Science-Based Model for Identifying and Mitigating Forensic Mental Health Expert Biases
  • Bias in Peer Review of Forensic Psychiatry Publications
  • Reconsidering the Relationship Between Criminal Insanity and Delusions
Show more Regular Article

Similar Articles

Site Navigation

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive
  • Information for Authors
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts

Other Resources

  • Academy Website
  • AAPL Meetings
  • AAPL Annual Review Course

Reviewers

  • Peer Reviewers

Other Publications

  • AAPL Practice Guidelines
  • AAPL Newsletter
  • AAPL Ethics Guidelines
  • AAPL Amicus Briefs
  • Landmark Cases

Customer Service

  • Cookie Policy
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Order Physical Copy

Copyright © 2025 by The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law