Picture of person typing on laptop with programming code visible on the laptop screen

World class computing and information science research at Strathclyde...

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 University of Strathclyde researchers, including by researchers from the Department of Computer & Information Sciences involved in mathematically structured programming, similarity and metric search, computer security, software systems, combinatronics and digital health.

The Department also includes the iSchool Research Group, which performs leading research into socio-technical phenomena and topics such as information retrieval and information seeking behaviour.

Explore

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.