Who gives the most reliable account of a psychiatric patient's personality?

Abstract

AbstractObjective: To compare the perceived accuracy of diagnostic information derived from psychiatric patients and a range of other informants using a schedule for assessing personality disorders (Personality Assessment Schedule). Method: The Personality Assessment Schedule includes a rating of reliability of the information obtained from whatever source. A record was made of these reliability scores in 405 patients with psychiatric disorder; 146 with both subjects and other informants and 259 with the informant only, and analysed using non-parametric statistics. Results: There was significant variation in the distribution of scores among the four psychiatrists who rated 232 of the interviews with informants, suggesting that inter-individual differences are paramount in deciding who is a reliable informant. Nevertheless, the views of other informants when they were spouses or cohabitees were judged to be more accurate than those of other relatives or acquaintances. No differences were found in the perceived reliability of data from subjects and informants when both were interviewed separately. Conclusions: Subjects and informants are judged to be equally reliable in giving assessments of personality status but the informants who have the closest relationship to subjects, spouses and cohabitees, are judged superior to informants of more distant immediate relationship in the accuracy of their information about personality status.