title: AIMS ratings--repeatability.
abstract: In the present study, two raters, a psychologist and a nurse, each made five independent ratings of 30 different video-recorded patient-examinations. Having thus excluded patient fluctuation, individual-rater consistency and between-rater agreement over the 6 weeks of the study are examined. While between-rater agreement was apparently being maintained, mean AIMS scores steadily increased. In the hands of these raters, AIMS items 2 and 4 emerged as very reliable, while items 1, 6, and 7 showed high variability. Some patients appeared to be hard to rate. Differences between the study raters and the author JB highlight the issue: how reproducible is an AIMS rating?
authors.affiliation: Dept of Psychiatry, University of Sydney.
authors.forename: J A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Bergen
authors.forename: N B
authors.initials: NB
authors.lastname: Carter
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Craig
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Macfarlane
authors.forename: E F
authors.initials: EF
authors.lastname: Smith
authors.forename: P J
authors.initials: PJ
authors.lastname: Beumont
mesh_terms: D004409:Dyskinesia, Drug-Induced / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000503:physiopathology; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009068:Movement; D010808:Physical Examination