| Literature DB >> 21785889 |
Anna Lundh1, Jan Kowalski, Carl Johan Sundberg, Mikael Landén.
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.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 21785889 DOI: 10.1007/s10488-011-0369-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adm Policy Ment Health ISSN: 0894-587X