Picture of athlete cycling

Open Access research with a real impact on health...

The Strathprints institutional repository is a digital archive of University of Strathclyde's Open Access research outputs. Strathprints provides access to thousands of Open Access research papers by Strathclyde researchers, including by researchers from the Physical Activity for Health Group based within the School of Psychological Sciences & Health. Research here seeks to better understand how and why physical activity improves health, gain a better understanding of the amount, intensity, and type of physical activity needed for health benefits, and evaluate the effect of interventions to promote physical activity.

Explore open research content by Physical Activity for Health...

Patient and clinician agreement on personality using the SWAP-200

Davidson, Kate M. and Obonsawin, M. and Seils, M. and Patience, L. (2003) Patient and clinician agreement on personality using the SWAP-200. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17 (3). pp. 208-218. ISSN 0885-579X

Full text not available in this repository. Request a copy from the Strathclyde author

Abstract

The Shedler Westen Assessment Procedure (SWAP-200; Westen and Shedler, 1999a) is a clinician-rated assessment providing descriptions of personality disorder prototypes using a Q-sort procedure. This study aims to investigate the degree to which there is agreement between patients' and clinicians' accounts of personality pathology on a modified version of the SWAP-200 using Bland Altman analysis with the data from 23 clinician-patient pairs. Poor agreement was found between clinicians and patients on personality prototypes. Even the best agreement found between patients and clinicians on the avoidant prototype was poor - the patients' ratings were up to 43.5 per cent below and 32.9 per cent above the clinicians' ratings. This is an unacceptable degree of variation. The difference between the clinician and patient ratings are large when expressed as a percentage of the possible scores (as obtained on the clinician rating scale). The patient ratings vary between being 40.8 to 91.1% below the clinician ratings, and 32.9 to 99.7% above the clinician ratings.