Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Free Access - Register Here

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Edman, A.
Right arrow Articles by Wallin, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Edman, A.
Right arrow Articles by Wallin, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology, Vol. 14, No. 3, 140-144 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/089198870101400307

Inter-rater Reliability of the STEP Protocol

Åke Edman, MD, PhD

Martin Mahnfeldt, MD

Anders Wallin, MD, PhD

An inter-rater reliability test of the Stepwise Comparative Status Analysis (STEP) is presented. The STEP is a pro tocol for the clinical examination of patients with dementia, within the scope of a neuropsychiatric investigation. It combines psychiatric and neurologic bedside examination methods. The analysis is made in three steps where primary, observable symptom variables are successively aggregated via compound variables to the final determi nation of one of seven possible dominant regional brain syndromes (global, frontal, subcortical, parietal, frontosubcortical, frontoparietal, other), here also called complex variables. In the present study, two senior physi cians assessed 50 patients independently and simultaneously. None of the patients was known to both physicians. In 42 patients (84%), the same dominant brain syndrome was determined by the two clinicians. The probability (P value) of this (or better) agreement was calculated at 2.0 x 10-12. Kappa coefficients were calculated as a measure of assessment agreement regarding the 50 STEP variables. For 20 variables, the coefficient was 0.75 or above, indi cating excellent agreement; for 22 variables, the coefficient was below 0.75 and above 0.40, indicating moderate agreement; and for 4 variables, the value was 0.40 or below, indicating poor agreement. Kappa calculations regard ing the assessments of four variables were either not possible or were considered inappropriate. (J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 2001; 14:140-144).


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?