Search

The Teacher Behavior Checklist (TBC) is an internationally recognized instrument to conduct formative assessment for teachers. The TBC has been specifically adapted for Brazilian undergraduates to ensure that its psychometric properties are satisfactory to this target population. However, it is not clear whether the two-factor model is adequate and to what extent different degrees of teacher performance are detected by the use of TBC. The objective of this study was to investigate additional evidence of the TBC’s psychometric properties. The data was collected in a sample of 676 undergraduate students. They rated one of three types of teachers: poor, average, or good. We identified the feasibility of multi-factor models but advocate the use of a one-factor model and a two-factor model. We also verified a difference between the three types of teachers, indicating that the TBC differentiates teachers’ performance. Additional reliability evidence was found. These data indicate that the TBC can be a useful resource to assist college teachers’ formative assessment.

The classification of psychopathology drives many aspects of the mental health profession. This chapter outlines the major controversies current today in traditional psychiatric classification, including the definition of mental disorder, the organization of classificatory systems, issues concerning comorbidity, measurement issues, and many others. These controversies are tracked historically across the various editions of the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM and the World Health Organization’s ICD and put into their historical context. This chapter argues that the classification of mental disorders is an inherently value-laden and subjective enterprise, but one that is nonetheless integral to the science and practice of mental health.

The Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5) assesses the five pathological personality trait domains that comprise the descriptive core of the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD). The PID-5 five-domain factor structure is aligned with the AMPD and is reported as replicable across samples in the U.S., in other countries, and in different languages. In this study, the PID-5 factor structure is examined in two distinct racial groups within the U.S.-White Americans (WA) and Black Americans (BA). Student participants from four universities in the U.S. (N = 1,834)-composed of groups of WA (n = 1,274) and BA (n = 560)-were proportionally parsed into derivation and replication subsamples. The "traditional" PID-5 five-factor structure emerged for the WA group in the derivation subsample and was subsequently confirmed in the WA replication subsample. In the BA group derivation subsample, a single-factor solution emerged, which was also confirmed in the BA replication sample. This single-factor solution in the BA group reflects large shared covariation across all pathological personality domains, suggesting an undifferentiated, broadly based level of demoralization represented by the item pool of the PID-5. We argue that this structure can be construed as mirroring a racialized and prejudice-based living experience for many BAs in a predominantly non-Black society. Based on the results with the samples employed in the present study, we conclude that the PID-5 is not an equivalent measure of pathological personality traits across Black Americans and White Americans. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective One strategy for improving the clinical utility of mental health diagnostic systems is to better align them with how clinicians conceptualize psychopathology in practice. This approach was used in International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11) development, but its underlying assumption-a link between taxonomic "fit" and clinical utility-remains untested. Methods Using data from global mental health clinician samples (combined N = 5404), we investigated the association between taxonomic fit and clinical utility in mental disorder categories. Results The overall association between fit and utility was positive (r = 0.19) but statistically not different from zero (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.06, 0.43) in this small sample (N = 39 ICD/DSM categories). However, a positive association became clear after correcting for outliers (r = 0.34 [0.05, 0.58] or higher). Further insights were apparent for specific diagnoses given their locations in the scatterplot. Conclusions Results suggest a positive link between taxonomic fit and clinical utility in mental disorder diagnoses, highlighting future research directions.

This study used the data from the TALIS 2018 to explore how teacher job satisfaction is affected by factors at the teacher-level (e.g., teacher motivation and teachers’ perceived disciplinary clima...

BACKGROUND: We report results of an internet-based field study evaluating the diagnostic guidelines for the newly introduced ICD-11 grouping of obsessive-compulsive and related disorders (OCRD). We examined accuracy of clinicians' diagnostic judgments applying draft ICD-11 as compared to the ICD-10 diagnostic guidelines to standardized case vignettes.METHODS: 1,717 mental health professionals who are members of the World Health Organization's Global Clinical Practice Network completed the study in Chinese, English, French, Japanese, Russian or Spanish. Participants were randomly assigned to apply ICD-11 or ICD-10 guidelines to one of nine pairs of case vignettes.RESULTS: Participants using ICD-11 outperformed those using ICD-10 in correctly identifying newly introduced OCRD, although results were mixed for differentiating OCRD from disorders in other groupings largely due to clinicians having difficulty differentiating challenging presentations of OCD. Clinicians had difficulty applying a three-level insight qualifier, although the 'poor to absent' level assisted with differentiating OCRD from psychotic disorders. Brief training on the rationale for an OCRD grouping did not improve diagnostic accuracy suggesting sufficient detail of the proposed guidelines.LIMITATIONS: Standardized case vignettes were manipulated to include specific characteristics; the degree of accuracy of clinicians' diagnostic judgments about these vignettes may not generalize to application in routine clinical practice.CONCLUSIONS: Overall, use of the ICD-11 guidelines resulted in more accurate diagnosis of case vignettes compared to the ICD-10 guidelines, particularly in differentiating OCRD presentations from one another. Specific areas in which the ICD-11 guidelines did not perform as intended provided the basis for further revisions to the guidelines.

A substantial body of evidence indicates that mindfulness is associated with less anxiety. However, less is known about the mechanisms by which mindfulness decreases anxiety. One possibility is that mindfulness encourages individuals to be less experientially avoidant (e.g., less likely to attempt to suppress or avoid unwanted private experiences), a hallmark of anxiety. The purpose of the present research was to assess whether less experiential avoidance accounted for the inverse relation between mindfulness and anxiety. Two studies were conducted with college students (Ns = 493 and 320, respectively). Participants completed self-report measures of trait mindfulness, anxiety, and experiential avoidance online (Study 1) and in person (Study 2) for course credit. Across both studies, greater mindfulness was associated with lower experiential avoidance and anxiety, and experiential avoidance was positively associated with anxiety. Furthermore, experiential avoidance significantly accounted for the relation between mindfulness and anxiety in both studies. Alternative mediation models were also tested. These findings suggest that mindfulness may improve anxiety through its effects on experiential avoidance. Given that experiential avoidance is thought to be involved in the development and maintenance of several psychological disorders, interventions involving mindfulness training may have promising broad mental health benefits. However, further research is needed to replicate these findings across clinical populations and therapeutic settings.

The Chinese Ministry of Education recently called for improvements in undergraduate teaching. One way to meet this mandate is to codify what Chinese undergraduate students consider to be poor teaching behaviors. Across three phases, this study investigated poor teacher behaviors and compared them to existing data from American students. The categories of poor teaching generated by both sets of students overlapped considerably. However, some characteristics of poor teaching—such as teachers being unfair to students—may be unique to China. The specific behaviors that are representative of poor teaching qualities differed across the two cultures, suggesting the need for a nuanced approach to examining what students perceive to be poor teaching.

Background This article reports the results of one of a series of global field studies implemented by the World Health Organization (WHO) to evaluate the accuracy, clinical utility, and global applicability of the new diagnostic guidelines for Mental, Behavioural and Neurological Disorders included in the next version of WHO's International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Aims of the study The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility ratings of global clinicians implementing the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for Anxiety and Fear-Related Disorders, relative to those applying ICD-10 guidelines. The study also aimed to identify elements of the guidelines that required further refinement or clarification. Methods 1840 global mental health professionals registered with WHO's Global Clinical Practice Network completed the study in one of six study languages. Participants were randomly assigned to apply either the ICD-11 or ICD-10 guidelines to diagnose standardized case vignettes, and to rate the clinical utility of their assigned guidelines. Results ICD-11's diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility were equivalent or superior to that of ICD-10. Global clinicians were significantly more accurate in diagnosing Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Specific Phobia and adult cases of Separation Anxiety Disorder when using ICD-11 and provided high clinical utility ratings for these disorders. Clinicians also found the ICD-11 guidelines easy to use, clear, and a good fit to patients they see in their clinical practice. However, clinicians had difficulty with distinguishing the boundary between disorder and normality for subthreshold cases of anxiety, and also with applying the new ICD-11 guidelines on panic attacks. Conclusions The new diagnostic guidelines for Anxiety Disorders in ICD-11 can be applied in an acceptably consistent manner by global clinicians and perform as well or better than the previous guidelines for ICD-10. Study findings also helped identify aspects of the ICD-11 guidelines that required refinement prior to their publication and areas that should be emphasized in training programs.

Given recent changes in the legal status of cannabis, the risks and benefits associated with its use have become an important public health topic. A growing body of research has demonstrated that posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and recreational cannabis use (RCU) frequently co-occur, yet findings are inconsistent (e.g., direction of effect) and methodological variability makes comparison across studies difficult.We conducted a comprehensive systematic review of all studies (N = 45) published before May 2020 regarding etiologic models of co-occurring RCU and PTSD, as well as provided a methodological critique to inform suggestions for future research initiatives.Findings indicate that a majority of studies (n = 37) demonstrated a significant association between RCU and PTSD. Findings provide evidence for the self-medication and high-risk models posited to explain co-occurring RCU and PTSD despite variability in assessment of RCU, which includes commonly used non-standardized self-report questions.The association between RCU and PTSD is likely bidirectional. Results inform clinicians and researchers working in the mental health and cannabis use fields how the variability in findings on the association between RCU and PTSD may be attributable, in part, to methodological issues that permeate the extant literature pertaining to RCU and PTSD.

Background We report results of an internet-based field study evaluating the diagnostic guidelines for ICD-11 mood disorders. Accuracy of clinicians' diagnostic judgments applying draft ICD-11 as compared to the ICD-10 guidelines to standardized case vignettes was assessed as well as perceived clinical utility. Methods 1357 clinician members of the World Health Organization's Global Clinical Practice Network completed the study in English, Spanish, Japanese or Russian. Participants were randomly assigned to apply ICD-11 or ICD-10 guidelines to one of eleven pairs of case vignettes. Results Clinicians using the ICD-11 and ICD-10 guidelines achieved similar levels of accuracy in diagnosing mood disorders depicted in vignettes. Those using the ICD-11 were more accurate in identifying depressive episode in recurrent depressive disorder. There were no statistically significant differences detected across classifications in the accuracy of identifying dysthymic or cyclothymic disorder. Circumscribed problems with the proposed ICD-11 guidelines were identified including difficulties differentiating bipolar type I from bipolar type II disorder and applying revised severity ratings to depressive episodes. Clinical utility of ICD-11 bipolar disorders was found to be significantly lower than for ICD-10 equivalent categories. Limitations Standardized case vignettes were manipulated to evaluate specific changes. The degree of accuracy of clinicians' diagnostic judgments may not reflect clinical decision-making with patients. Conclusions Alignment of the ICD-11 with current research appears to have been achieved without sacrificing diagnostic accuracy or clinical utility though specific training may be necessary as ICD-11 is implemented worldwide. Areas in which the ICD-11 guidelines did not perform as intended resulted in further revisions.

In this web-based field study, we compared the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of 10 selected mental disorders between the ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG) and the ICD-10 CDDG using vignettes in a sample of 928 health professionals from all WHO regions. On average, the ICD-11 CDDG displayed significantly higher diagnostic accuracy (71.9% for ICD-11, 53.2% for ICD-10), higher ease of use, better goodness of fit, higher clarity, and lower time required for diagnosis compared to the ICD-10 CDDG. The advantages of the ICD-11 CDDG were largely limited to new diagnoses in ICD-11. After limiting analyses to diagnoses existing in ICD-11 and ICD-10, the ICD-11 CDDG were only superior in ease of use. The ICD-11 CDDG were not inferior in diagnostic accuracy or clinical utility compared to the ICD-10 CDDG for any of the vignettes. Diagnostic accuracy was consistent across WHO regions and independent of participants' clinical experience. There were no differences between medical doctors and psychologists in diagnostic accuracy, but members of other health professions had greater difficulties in determining correct diagnoses based on the ICD-11 CDDG. In sum, there were no differences in diagnostic accuracy for diagnoses existing in ICD-10 and ICD-11, but the introduction of new diagnoses in ICD-11 has improved the diagnostic classification of some clinical presentations. The favourable clinical utility ratings of the ICD-11 CDDG give reason to expect a positive evaluation by health professionals in the implementation phase of ICD-11. Yet, training in ICD-11 is needed to further enhance the diagnostic accuracy.

Pairwise similarity judgments and card sorting methodologies are different ways of generating data for similarity matrices used in various analyses such as multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis. Pairwise similarity judgments are considered the gold standard methodology, but can be cumbersome for large numbers of stimuli given the geometric increase in number of judgments necessary to fill the matrix. Card sorting methods provide a more expedient means of gathering this information, although they typically generate only binary data. Nonetheless, aggregated matrices generated from card sorts approximate pairwise similarity matrices. The current study used pairwise similarity and card sorting results from two existing studies that used the same stimuli to determine the optimal number of participants needed in a card sorting task to approximate the similarity matrix of pairwise data collection. In these studies, approximately 10–15 participants provided optimal estimation of the similarity matrix, with minimal increases for higher numbers of participants.

Background The diagnosis of paraphilic disorder is a complicated clinical judgment based on the integration of information from multiple dimensions to arrive at a categorical (present/absent) conclusion. The recent update of the guidelines for paraphilic disorders in ICD-11 presents an opportunity to investigate how mental health professionals use the diagnostic guidelines to arrive at a diagnosis which thereby can optimize the guidelines for clinical use. Aim This study examined clinicians’ ability to use the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for paraphilic disorders which contain multiple dimensions that must be simultaneously assessed to arrive at a diagnosis. Methods The study investigated the ability of 1,263 international clinicians to identify the dimensions of paraphilic disorder in the context of written case vignettes that varied on a single dimension only. Outcomes Participants provided diagnoses for the case vignettes along with dimensional ratings of the degree of presence of five dimensions of paraphilic disorder (arousal, consent, action, distress, and risk). RESULTS Across a series of analyses, clinicians demonstrated a clear ability to recognize and appropriately integrate the dimensions of paraphilic disorders; however, there was some evidence that clinicians may over-diagnose non-pathological cases. Clinical Translation Clinicians would likely benefit from targeted training on the ICD-11 definition of paraphilic disorder and should be cautious of over-diagnosing. Strengths and Limitations This study represents a large international sample of health professionals and is the first to examine clinicians’ ability to apply the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for paraphilic disorders. Important limitations include not generalizing to all clinicians and acknowledging that results may be different in direct clinical interactions vs written case vignettes. CONCLUSION These results indicate that clinicians appear capable of interpreting and implementing the diagnostic guidelines for paraphilic disorders in ICD-11.

Introduction: The DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders (PD) are largely commensurate and, when combined, they delineate 6 trait domains: negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism/dissociality, disinhibition, anankastia, and psychoticism. Objective: The present study evaluated the international validity of a brief 36-item patient-report measure that portrays all 6 domains simultaneously including 18 primary subfacets. Methods: We developed and employed a modified version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 – Brief Form Plus (PID5BF+). A total of 16,327 individuals were included, 2,347 of whom were patients. The expected 6-factor structure of facets was initially investigated in samples from Denmark (n = 584), Germany (n = 1,271), and the USA (n = 605) and subsequently replicated in both patient- and community samples from Italy, France, Switzerland, Belgium, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Poland, Czech Republic, the USA, and Brazil. Associations with interview-rated DSM-5 PD categories were also investigated. Results: Findings generally supported the empirical soundness and international robustness of the 6 domains including meaningful associations with familiar interview-rated PD types. Conclusions: The modified PID5BF+ may be employed internationally by clinicians and researchers for brief and reliable assessment of the 6 combined DSM-5 and ICD-11 domains, including 18 primary subfacets. This 6-domain framework may inform a future nosology for DSM-5.1 that is more reasonably aligned with the authoritative ICD-11 codes than the current DSM-5 AMPD model. The 36-item modified PID5BF+ scoring key is provided in online supplementary Appendix A see www.karger.com/doi/10.1159/000507589 (for all online suppl. material).

The most recent versions of the two main mental disorders classifications-the World Health Organization's ICD-11 and the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-5-differ substantially in their diagnostic categories related to transgender identity. ICD-11 gender incongruence (GI), in contrast to DSM-5 gender dysphoria (GD), is explicitly not a mental disorder; neither distress nor dysfunction is a required feature. The objective was compared ICD-11 and DSM-5 diagnostic requirements in terms of their sensitivity, specificity, discriminability and ability to predict the use of gender-affirming medical procedures.A total of 649 of transgender adults in six countries completed a retrospective structured interview.Using ROC analysis, sensitivity of the diagnostic requirements was equivalent for both systems, but ICD-11 showed greater specificity than DSM-5. Regression analyses indicated that history of hormones and/or surgery was predicted by variables that are an intrinsic aspect of GI/GD more than by distress and dysfunction. IRT analyses showed that the ICD-11 diagnostic formulation was more parsimonious and contained more information about caseness than the DSM-5 model.This study supports the ICD-11 position that GI/GD is not a mental disorder; additional diagnostic requirements of distress and/or dysfunction in DSM-5 reduce the predictive power of the diagnostic model.Las versiones más recientes de las clasificaciones de trastornos mentales —CIE-11 de la Organización Mundial de la Salud y DSM–5 de la Asociación Psiquiátrica Americana— difieren en sus categorías diagnósticas relacionadas con la identidad transgénero. La discordancia de género (DiscG) de la CIE-11, en contraste con la disforia de género (DisfG) del DSM-5, no es considerada un trastorno mental; el distrés y la disfunción no son características requeridas para el diagnóstico. El objetivo fue comparar los requisitos diagnósticos de la CIE-11 y el DSM-5 en términos de sensibilidad, especificidad y capacidad para discriminar casos y predecir el uso de procedimientos médicos de afirmación de género.649 adultos transgénero de seis países completaron una entrevista estructurada retrospectiva.De acuerdo con el análisis ROC, la sensibilidad de ambos sistemas fue equivalente, aunque la CIE-11 mostró mayor especificidad que el DSM-5. Los análisis de regresión indicaron que la historia de uso de hormonas o cirugía se predijo por variables intrínsecas a la DiscG/DisfG y no por el distrés o disfunción. Según los análisis de respuesta al ítem (TRi) la formación CIE-11 resulta más parsimoniosa y contiene mayor información sobre los casos.Se aporta evidencia a favor de que la DiscG/DisfG no es un trastorno mental; los criterios diagnósticos adicionales de distrés y/o disfunción del DSM-5 reducen su poder predictivo.

Background Conceptualizations of personality disorders (PD) are increasingly moving towards dimensional approaches. The definition and assessment of borderline personality disorder (BPD) in regard to changes in nosology are of great importance to theory and practice as well as consumers. We studied empirical connections between the traditional DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for BPD and Criteria A and B of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD). Method Raters of varied professional backgrounds possessing substantial knowledge of PDs (N = 20) characterized BPD criteria with the four domains of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) and 25 pathological personality trait facets. Mean AMPD values of each BPD criterion were used to support a nosological cross-walk of the individual BPD criteria and study various combinations of BPD criteria in their AMPD translation. The grand mean AMPD profile generated from the experts was compared to published BPD prototypes that used AMPD trait ratings and the DSM-5-III hybrid categorical-dimensional algorithm for BPD. Divergent comparisons with DSM-5-III algorithms for other PDs and other published PD prototypes were also examined. Results Inter-rater reliability analyses showed generally robust agreement. The AMPD profile for BPD criteria rated by individual BPD criteria was not isomorphic with whole-person ratings of BPD, although they were highly correlated. Various AMPD profiles for BPD were generated from theoretically relevant but differing configurations of BPD criteria. These AMPD profiles were highly correlated and showed meaningful divergence from non-BPD DSM-5-III algorithms and other PD prototypes. Conclusions Results show that traditional DSM BPD diagnosis reflects a common core of PD severity, largely composed of LPFS and the pathological traits of anxiousness, depressively, emotional lability, and impulsivity. Results confirm the traditional DSM criterion-based BPD diagnosis can be reliably cross-walked with the full AMPD scheme, and both approaches share substantial construct overlap. This relative equivalence suggests the vast clinical and research literatures associated with BPD may be brought forward with DSM-5-III diagnosis of BPD.

Diagnostic classifications of mental disorders are complex systems that integrate both scientific and social priorities. The Task Force on Developing Humanistic Approaches to Psychological Diagnosis of the Society for Humanistic Psychology has released a set of guidelines intended to guide the development of mental health classifications. This commentary argues that the attention paid in the guidelines to social processes is a desirable and inherent component of the development of any classification. Social influences regarding the definition of the concepts and the processes by which people develop them are integrally intertwined, contrary to the common view that nonscientific factors should be excluded from classification systems as much as possible. These guidelines offer a much needed resource for developing future mental health classifications.

Reliable, clinically useful, and globally applicable diagnostic classification of mental disorders is an essential foundation for global mental health. The World Health Organization (WHO) is nearing completion of the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD‐11). The present study assessed inter‐diagnostician reliability of mental disorders accounting for the greatest proportion of global disease burden and the highest levels of service utilization – schizophrenia and other primary psychotic disorders, mood disorders, anxiety and fear‐related disorders, and disorders specifically associated with stress – among adult patients presenting for treatment at 28 participating centers in 13 countries. A concurrent joint‐rater design was used, focusing specifically on whether two clinicians, relying on the same clinical information, agreed on the diagnosis when separately applying the ICD‐11 diagnostic guidelines. A total of 1,806 patients were assessed by 339 clinicians in the local language. Intraclass kappa coefficients for diagnoses weighted by site and study prevalence ranged from 0.45 (dysthymic disorder) to 0.88 (social anxiety disorder) and would be considered moderate to almost perfect for all diagnoses. Overall, the reliability of the ICD‐11 diagnostic guidelines was superior to that previously reported for equivalent ICD‐10 guidelines. These data provide support for the suitability of the ICD‐11 diagnostic guidelines for implementation at a global level. The findings will inform further revision of the ICD‐11 diagnostic guidelines prior to their publication and the development of programs to support professional training and implementation of the ICD‐11 by WHO member states.

We report on a global survey of diagnosing mental health professionals, primarily psychiatrists, conducted as a part of the development of the ICD-11 mental and behavioural disorders classification. The survey assessed these professionals' use of various components of the ICD-10 and the DSM, their attitudes concerning the utility of these systems, and usage of "residual" (i.e., "other" or "unspecified") categories. In previous surveys, most mental health professionals reported they often use a formal classification system in everyday clinical work, but very little is known about precisely how they are using those systems. For example, it has been suggested that most clinicians employ only the diagnostic labels or codes from the ICD-10 in order to meet administrative requirements. The present survey was conducted with clinicians who were members of the Global Clinical Practice Network (GCPN), established by the World Health Organization as a tool for global participation in ICD-11 field studies. A total of 1,764 GCPN members from 92 countries completed the survey, with 1,335 answering the questions with reference to the ICD-10 and 429 to the DSM (DSM-IV, DSM-IV-TR or DSM-5). The most frequent reported use of the classification systems was for administrative or billing purposes, with 68.1% reporting often or routinely using them for that purpose. A bit more than half (57.4%) of respondents reported often or routinely going through diagnostic guidelines or criteria systematically to determine whether they apply to individual patients. Although ICD-10 users were more likely than DSM-5 users to utilize the classification for administrative purposes, other differences were either slight or not significant. Both classifications were rated to be most useful for assigning a diagnosis, communicating with other health care professionals and teaching, and least useful for treatment selection and determining prognosis. ICD-10 was rated more useful than DSM-5 for administrative purposes. A majority of clinicians reported using "residual" categories at least sometimes, with around 12% of ICD-10 users and 19% of DSM users employing them often or routinely, most commonly for clinical presentations that do not conform to a specific diagnostic category or when there is insufficient information to make a more specific diagnosis. These results provide the most comprehensive available information about the use of diagnostic classifications of mental disorders in ordinary clinical practice.

Teacher job satisfaction is a heated topic worldwide. Among the possible factors influencing teacher job satisfaction, distributed leadership is very important one. Given very few studies have investigated the effects of distributed leadership on teacher job satisfaction through teacher autonomy and teacher collaboration, this paper is important. It is expected to provide international readers with a better understanding of how these variables are practised in the Chinese context. Specifically, we aim to achieve two goals. The first goal is to investigate the direct impact of distributed leadership on teacher job satisfaction and the second one is to explore how distributed leadership indirectly affects teacher job satisfaction through teacher autonomy and teacher collaboration. The data are from the 2018 Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) (n = 3976). Structural equation modeling revealed statistically significant positive effects of distributed leadership on teacher autonomy, teacher collaboration, and teacher job satisfaction, respectively. The further analyses indicated that the indirect effects of distributed leadership on teacher job satisfaction through teacher autonomy and professional collaboration were statistically significant. However, distributed leadership had no indirect effect on job satisfaction via exchange and co-ordination. Based on the findings, we propose some suggestions to improve teacher job satisfaction, such as strengthening communications between school leaders and teachers, and providing adequate autonomy to teachers. The detailed relationships among these variables are discussed in connection with Chinese educational context.

Aims.The study aimed to examine variations in the use of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition (ICD-10) diagnostic categories for mental and behavioural disorders across countries, regions and income levels using data from the online World Psychiatric Association (WPA)-World Health Organization (WHO) Global Survey that examined the attitudes of psychiatrists towards the classification of mental disorders.Methods.A survey was sent to 46 psychiatric societies which are members of WPA. A total of 4887 psychiatrists participated in the survey, which asked about their use of classification, their preferred system and the categories that were used most frequently.Results.The majority (70.1%) of participating psychiatrists (out of 4887 psychiatrists) reported using the ICD-10 the most and using at least one diagnostic category once a week. Nine out of 44 diagnostic categories were considerably variable in terms of frequency of use across countries. These were: emotionally unstable personality disorder, borderline type; dissociative (conversion) disorder; somatoform disorders; obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD); mental and behavioural disorders due to the use of alcohol; adjustment disorder; mental and behavioural disorders due to the use of cannabinoids; dementia in Alzheimer's disease; and acute and transient psychotic disorder. The frequency of use for these nine categories was examined across WHO regions and income levels. The most striking differences across WHO regions were found for five out of these nine categories. For dissociative (conversion) disorder, use was highest for the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMRO) and non-existent for the WHO African Region. For mental and behavioural disorders due to the use of alcohol, use was lowest for EMRO. For mental and behavioural disorders due to the use of cannabinoids, use was lowest for the WHO European Region and the WHO Western Pacific Region. For OCD and somatoform disorders, use was lowest for EMRO and the WHO Southeast Asian Region. Differences in the frequency of use across income levels were statistically significant for all categories except for mental and behavioural disorders due to the use of alcohol. The most striking variations were found for acute and transient psychotic disorder, which was reported to be more commonly used among psychiatrists from countries with lower income levels.Conclusions.The differences in frequency of use reported in the current study show that cross-cultural variations in psychiatric practice exist. However, whether these differences are due to the variations in prevalence, treatment-seeking behaviour and other factors, such as psychiatrist and patient characteristics as a result of culture, cannot be determined based on the findings of the study. Further research is needed to examine whether these variations are culturally determined and how that would affect the cross-cultural applicability of ICD-10 diagnostic categories.

Across three phases, we investigated college students’ perceptions of poor college teaching to develop a typology of poor teaching behaviors. In Phase 1, students generated a list of qualities representative of poor teaching. In Phase 2, another group of students assigned behavioral correspondents to these qualities, resulting in a list of 15 poor teaching qualities and their attendant misbehaviors. Finally, in Phase 3, yet another group of students generated a “top 5” list of qualities and behaviors that their most ineffective teachers have exhibited. Across participants in Phase 3, the top 5 list included, in order, being disrespectful, offering unrepresentative and unfair student learning assessments, having unrealistic expectations for student learning, being less than knowledgeable on course content, and having poor communication skills. These findings provide practical guidance on which particular behaviors teachers should avoid adopting in their instructional repertoires.

The subtype system for categorising presentations of schizophrenia will be removed from International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision. In its place will be a system for rating six domains of psychotic disorder pathology: positive symptoms, negative symptoms, depressive symptoms, manic symptoms, psychomotor symptoms and cognitive symptoms. This paper outlines the rationale and description of the proposed symptom rating scale, including current controversies. In particular, the scale could adopt either a 4-point severity rating or a 2-point presence/absence rating. The 4-point scale has the advantage of gathering more information, but potentially at the cost of reliability. The paper concludes by describing the field testing process for evaluating the proposed scale.

OBJECTIVE This study examined the impact of clinicians' demographics and response time on diagnostic accuracy. METHOD We conducted mediation analyses on data from a WHO field study of the ICD-11 that required clinicians (N = 1,822, 44.3% female, 44.92 years old) to diagnose two case vignettes. RESULTS Contradictory to decision-making theories, clinicians with more years of experience and slower response times had higher rates of diagnostic accuracy. In comparison to North American clinicians, clinicians in Asia who responded faster had lower accuracy rates, and clinicians in South America who responded slower had higher accuracy rates. Medical professionals with quicker response times had lower accuracy rates compared with psychologists and other clinical professionals. CONCLUSION Findings indicate that clinicians should consider how their clinical setting, level of experience, and response time influence the diagnostic process. Future research on diagnostic accuracy should consider additional mediating factors, such as cultural differences in response time.

A major goal for the revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Edition (ICD-10) is to increase the clinical utility of the diagnostic system. Schizoaffective disorder has a history of poor diagnostic reliability due to the similarities and overlap in symptoms that it shares with other disorders, especially primary psychotic and mood disorders. The present study was part of the case-controlled field trials for ICD-11 and examines how the proposed changes for schizoaffective disorder may improve differential diagnosis and diagnostic accuracy. Clinicians from around the globe (n = 873) were provided with either ICD-10 or ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines and asked to apply them to case vignettes comparing schizoaffective disorder to schizophrenia and mood disorders with psychotic symptoms. Participants were asked to respond to follow-up diagnostic questions to determine which components of the diagnostic guidelines affected diagnostic accuracy. Overall, clinicians showed small improvements in accurately diagnosing vignettes using ICD-11 over ICD-10. Results suggest the discrepancy in diagnosing schizoaffective disorder is related primarily to the presence of mood symptoms and discrepancies about whether those symptoms are more consistent with schizoaffective disorder or a mood disorder diagnosis. Continuing to identify ways to more accurately capture this symptom picture will be important in the future as well as systematic efforts to educate clinicians about differential diagnosis.

Following approval of the ICD‐11 by the World Health Assembly in May 2019, World Health Organization (WHO) member states will transition from the ICD‐10 to the ICD‐11, with reporting of health statistics based on the new system to begin on January 1, 2022. The WHO Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse will publish Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG) for ICD‐11 Mental, Behavioural and Neurodevelopmental Disorders following ICD‐11’s approval. The development of the ICD‐11 CDDG over the past decade, based on the principles of clinical utility and global applicability, has been the most broadly international, multilingual, multidisciplinary and participative revision process ever implemented for a classification of mental disorders. Innovations in the ICD‐11 include the provision of consistent and systematically characterized information, the adoption of a lifespan approach, and culture‐related guidance for each disorder. Dimensional approaches have been incorporated into the classification, particularly for personality disorders and primary psychotic disorders, in ways that are consistent with current evidence, are more compatible with recovery‐based approaches, eliminate artificial comorbidity, and more effectively capture changes over time. Here we describe major changes to the structure of the ICD‐11 classification of mental disorders as compared to the ICD‐10, and the development of two new ICD‐11 chapters relevant to mental health practice. We illustrate a set of new categories that have been added to the ICD‐11 and present the rationale for their inclusion. Finally, we provide a description of the important changes that have been made in each ICD‐11 disorder grouping. This information is intended to be useful for both clinicians and researchers in orienting themselves to the ICD‐11 and in preparing for implementation in their own professional contexts.

Background The World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) is used globally by 194 WHO member nations. It is used for assigning clinical diagnoses, providing the framework for reporting public health data, and to inform the organization and reimbursement of health services. Guided by overarching principles of increasing clinical utility and global applicability, the 11th revision of the ICD proposes major changes that incorporate empirical advances since the previous revision in 1992. To test recommended changes in the Mental, Behavioral, and Neurodevelopmental Disorders chapter, multiple vignette-based case-controlled field studies have been conducted which examine clinicians’ ability to accurately and consistently use the new guidelines and assess their overall clinical utility. This manuscript reports on the results from the study of the proposed ICD-11 guidelines for feeding and eating disorders (FEDs). Method Participants were 2288 mental health professionals registered with WHO’s Global Clinical Practice Network. The study was conducted in Chinese, English, French, Japanese, and Spanish. Clinicians were randomly assigned to apply either the ICD-11 or ICD-10 diagnostic guidelines for FEDs to a pair of case vignettes designed to test specific clinical questions. Clinicians selected the diagnosis they thought was correct for each vignette, evaluated the presence of each essential feature of the selected diagnosis, and the clinical utility of the diagnostic guidelines. Results The proposed ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines significantly improved accuracy for all FEDs tested relative to ICD-10 and attained higher clinical utility ratings; similar results were obtained across all five languages. The inclusion of binge eating disorder and avoidant-restrictive food intake disorder reduced the use of residual diagnoses. Areas needing further refinement were identified. Conclusions The proposed ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines consistently outperformed ICD-10 in distinguishing cases of eating disorders and showed global applicability and appropriate clinical utility. These results suggest that the proposed ICD-11 guidelines for FEDs will help increase accuracy of public health data, improve clinical diagnosis, and enhance health service organization and provision. This is the first time in the revision of the ICD that data from large-scale, empirical research examining proposed guidelines is completed in time to inform the final diagnostic guidelines.

Objective The aim of this paper is to investigate how doctors working in primary health care in Latin American address patients with common mental disorders and to investigate how stigma can affect their clinical decisions. Methods Using a cross-sectional design, we applied an online self-administered questionnaire to a sample of 550 Primary Care Physicians (PCPs) from Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba and Chile. The questionnaire collected information about sociodemographic variables, training and experience with mental health care. Clinicians’ stigmatizing attitudes towards mental health were measured using the Mental Illness Clinicians' Attitudes Scale (MICA v4). The clinical decisions of PCPs were assessed through three clinical vignettes representing typical cases of depression, anxiety and somatization. Results A total of 387 professionals completed the questionnaires (70.3% response rate). The 63.7% of the PCPs felt qualified to diagnose and treat people with common mental disorders. More than 90% of the PCPs from Bolivia, Cuba and Chile agreed to treat the patients presented in the three vignettes. We did not find significant differences between the four countries in the scores of the MICA v4 stigma levels, with a mean = 36.3 and SD = 8.3 for all four countries. Gender (p = .672), age (p = .171), training (p = .673) and years of experience (p = .28) were unrelated to stigma. In the two multivariate regression models, PCPs with high levels of stigma were more likely to refer them to a psychiatrist the patients with depression (OR = 1.03, 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.07 p

Studies of master teaching have investigated a set of qualities that define excellent teaching. However, few studies have investigated master teachers’ perspectives on excellent teaching and how it may differ from other faculty or students. The current study investigated award-winning teachers’ ( N = 50) ratings of the 28 qualities on the teacher behavior checklist. There was substantial overlap in the importance placed upon various teaching qualities among award-winning teachers and other faculty. However, excellent teachers placed more value upon being prepared and forming rapport with students. Full professors placed more importance on several teaching qualities than associate and assistant professors. Teaching training programs should include broad definitions of excellent teaching that incorporate components that some faculty may otherwise overlook.

The advent of a dimensional model of personality disorder included in DSM-5 has necessitated the development of a new measurement scheme, specifically a self-report questionnaire termed the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012 ). However, there are many threats to the validity of a self-report measure, including response inconsistency. This study outlines the development of an inconsistency scale for the PID-5. Across both college student and clinical samples, the inconsistency scale was able to reliably differentiate real from random responding. Random responses led to increased scores on the PID-5 facets, indicating the importance of detecting inconsistent responding prior to test interpretation. Thus, this inconsistency scale could be of use to researchers and clinicians in detecting inconsistent responses to this new personality disorder measure.

Objective This study examined the role of expertise in clinicians’ memory for case details. Clinicians’ diagnostic formulations may afford mechanisms for retaining and retrieving information. Method Experts (N = 41; 47.6% males, 23.8% females; 28.6% did not report gender; age: mean [M] = 54.69) were members of the American Board of Professional Psychologists. Lay judges (N = 156; 25.4% males, 74.1% females; age: M = 18.85) were undergraduates enrolled in general psychology. Three vignettes were presented to each group, creating a 2 (group: expert, lay judge) x 3 (vignettes: simple, complex–coherent, complex–incoherent) mixed factorial design. Recall accuracy for vignette details was the dependent variable. Results Data analyses used multivariate analyses of variance to detect group differences among multiple continuous variables. Experts recalled more information than lay judges, overall. However, experts also exhibited more false memories for the complex–incoherent case because of their schema-based knowledge. Conclusions This study supported clinical expertise as beneficial. Nonetheless, negative influences from experts’ schema-based knowledge, as exhibited, could adversely affect clinical practices.

Researchers have found that students from different academic disciplines tend to value different qualities in their teachers, and cultural differences play a role in which qualities students appreciate in their professors. The present/current study employed the Teacher Behavior Checklist as an operationalization of teaching qualities in a comparative investigation among psychology, chemical engineering, and education students in China. Chinese college students’ perceptions of excellent teachers’ qualities differed across the three disciplines. We offer some contextual and cultural explanations for the differences and conclude that student evaluations of instruction should always be interpreted within the context of the evaluation.

The German Society for Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy (DGPPN,) conducted a comprehensive field study (principal investigator WG) funded by the German Federal Ministry of Health in cooperation with 4 other German medical societies in the field of mental health (DGPM, DGPPR, DeGFS, DGfS) * to support WHO's development of the ICD-11 (Chapters 6 and 17). The objective of the web-based field study was to compare ICD-10 and ICD-11 (beta draft) for selected mental disorders, regarding consistency, accuracy and assessment of utility. The first study (TP1) focused on the diagnostic classification and the second (TP2) on assignment of diagnostic codes.In TP1, clinicians used either the ICD-10 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG) version or a draft version of the ICD-11 CDDG to evaluate 10 case vignettes in a randomized study implemented through the WHO GCPN **. As hypothesized, consistency was in favor of the ICD-11 (p = .02; n = 319 expert participants) though there was some variability across the different diagnostic categories. In addition, time for diagnosis was shorter (p = .01) and clinicians' judgment of utility (ease of use; goodness of fit) was better for ICD-11 (p = .047 and p.001 respectively).TP2 focused on consistency of diagnostic code assignment for 25 short case descriptions (including explicit diagnosis and additional clinical information) using both ICD-10 and ICD-11 in a randomized web-based field study which was run on the WHO ICD-FiT *** platform. Based on 531 code assignments by120 expert clinicians, consistency for ICD-11 was significantly lower compared to ICD-10 (71 % vs. 82 %, p.001) contrary to study hypothesis, and time required was significantly higher for ICD-11 (p.001). Nevertheless, utility assessments were in favor of ICD-11 (p.005).In summary, in TP1, given vignettes with more complex clinical descriptions more similar to clinical cases, ICD-11 showed advantages in the consistency of correct diagnoses among clinicians, time required to reach a diagnosis, and clinicians' ratings of clinical utility. These results provide evidence for quality improvement of the diagnostic process due to the revision of the more complete diagnostic guidelines for ICD-11. In the coding task of TP2, coding by clinicians using the ICD-10 was more consistent and faster than coding using the ICD-11. This may be a result of the greater complexity for coding use of the ICD-11 (e. g., due to 'post-coordination'), as well as greater familiarity with the ICD-10 system (which German clinicians currently use) and lack of practice with the new ICD-11 codes and tools. In spite of this, users assessed the ICD-11 system as more useful than the ICD-10, in part also because of ICD-11's more systematic and comprehensive coding tools. In addition, time needed for coding improved with practice, indicating need for intense education and training initiatives when ICD-11 is adopted and implemented into clinical practice.Die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie, Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik und Nervenheilkunde (DGPPN) hat federführend (Projektleitung WG) in Kooperation mit vier weiteren medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (DGPM, DGPPR, DeGPT, DGfS) * eine von elf der vom Bundesministerium für Gesundheit geförderten Validierungsstudien zur Unterstützung der WHO-Revision der ICD-10 zur ICD-11 durchgeführt. Die internetbasierte Feldstudie hatte zum Ziel, für ausgewählte Kategorien aus dem Bereich psychischer Erkrankungen (Betadraft, Kapitel 6 und 17) die Konsistenz (Reliabilität) der Diagnosestellung (Teilprojekt TP 1) sowie der Zuweisung diagnostischer Codes (TP 2) nach ICD-11 im Vergleich zur ICD-10 zu überprüfen sowie Anwendereinschätzungen zur Praktikabilität und Nutzerfreundlichkeit zu erheben.TP 1 untersuchte in randomisiertem Design die Konsistenz der Diagnosestellung anhand von zehn Fallvignetten mittels klinischer Diagnoseleitlinien über die WHO GCPN-Plattform ** mit Hilfe von 319 rekrutierten Mitgliedern der beteiligten Fachgesellschaften. Hypothesenkonform war die Konsistenz für ICD-11 signifikant höher als für ICD-10 (p = 0,02). Zusätzlich waren Zeitdauer der Diagnosestellung kürzer (p = 0,01) und Anwenderbeurteilungen positiver für ICD-11 hinsichtlich Nutzerfreundlichkeit (p = 0,047) und Passgenauigkeit (p0,001).Ebenfalls randomisiert wurde in TP 2 die Konsistenz der Kodierung für 25 explizite Diagnosen mit kurzen epikritischen Fallbeschreibungen für ICD-11 und ICD-10 mittels WHO FiT-Tool *** erfasst (n = 531 Kodierungen von 120 Teilnehmenden). Entgegen der Hypothese fand sich eine unterlegene Konsistenz korrekter Kodierung für ICD-11 vs. ICD-10 (71 % vs. 82 %; p0,001) sowie ein höherer Zeitbedarf für ICD-11 (p0,001). Hingegen war die Nutzerbewertung für ICD-11 erneut überlegen (p0,005).Zusammenfassend weist die ICD-11 in der diagnostischen Güte bessere, in der Kodierleistung schlechtere Konsistenzergebnisse auf als ICD-10. Die Ergebnisse belegen, dass die revidierten diagnostischen Leitlinien die Qualität des diagnostischen Prozesses günstig beeinflussen, was durch die zeitlichen Leistungsmaße und Nutzerbeurteilungen gestützt wird. Demgegenüber fallen die Kodierleistungen für die ICD-11 noch zurück, was sowohl auf die mögliche höhere Kodierkomplexität (z. B. Komplex-Codes mit sog. „post-coordination“) als auch auf den ungeübten Umgang mit dem neuen Kodiertool für ICD-11 zurückzuführen sein dürfte. Dennoch wird der neue Kodierprozess aufgrund erweiterter und systematischerer Kodieroptionen günstiger beurteilt als für ICD-10. In den Verläufen der zeitlichen Leistungsmaße zeichnen sich überdies Lernerfolge für ICD-11 ab, die darauf hinweisen, dass eingehende Schulungs- und Trainingsmaßnahmen im Rahmen der künftigen Praxisimplementierung von ICD-11 nicht nur erforderlich, sondern auch erfolgreich sein dürften. Die über Diagnosekategorien hinweg variablen Konsistenzergebnisse weisen allerdings auch darauf hin, dass es in der gegenwärtigen Entwurfsfassung der ICD-11 noch Verbesserungspotenziale für Diagnostik und Kodierung gibt, die in abschließenden und kontinuierlichen Revisionsmaßnahmen i. S. eines „living document“ zu berücksichtigen sind.

Background/Objective: Collaborative teamwork in global mental health presents unique challenges, including the formation and management of international teams composed of multicultural and multilingual professionals with different backgrounds in terms of their training, scientific expertise, and life experience. The purpose of the study was to analyze the performance of the World Health Organization (WHO) Field Studies Coordination Group (FSCG) using an input-processes-output (IPO) team science model to better understand the team's challenges, limitations, and successes in developing the eleventh revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Method: We thematically analyzed a collection of written texts, including FSCG documents and open-ended qualitative questionnaires, according to the conceptualization of the input-processes-output model of team performance. Results: The FSCG leadership and its members experienced and overcame numerous barriers to become an effective international team and to successfully achieve the goals set forth by WHO. Conclusions: Research is necessary regarding global mental health collaboration to understand and facilitate international collaborations with the goal of contributing to a deeper understanding of mental health and to reduce the global burden of mental disorders around the world.

ZusammenfassungDie Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie, Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik und Nervenheilkunde (DGPPN) hat federführend (Projektleitung WG) in Kooperation mit vier weiteren medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (DGPM, DGPPR, DeGPT, DGfS) * eine von elf der vom Bundesministerium für Gesundheit geförderten Validierungsstudien zur Unterstützung der WHO-Revision der ICD-10 zur ICD-11 durchgeführt. Die internetbasierte Feldstudie hatte zum Ziel, für ausgewählte Kategorien aus dem Bereich psychischer Erkrankungen (Betadraft, Kapitel 6 und 17) die Konsistenz (Reliabilität) der Diagnosestellung (Teilprojekt TP 1) sowie der Zuweisung diagnostischer Codes (TP 2) nach ICD-11 im Vergleich zur ICD-10 zu überprüfen sowie Anwendereinschätzungen zur Praktikabilität und Nutzerfreundlichkeit zu erheben.TP 1 untersuchte in randomisiertem Design die Konsistenz der Diagnosestellung anhand von zehn Fallvignetten mittels klinischer Diagnoseleitlinien über die WHO GCPN-Plattform ** mit Hilfe von 319 rekrutierten Mitgliedern der beteiligten Fachgesellschaften. Hypothesenkonform war die Konsistenz für ICD-11 signifikant höher als für ICD-10 (p = 0,02). Zusätzlich waren Zeitdauer der Diagnosestellung kürzer (p = 0,01) und Anwenderbeurteilungen positiver für ICD-11 hinsichtlich Nutzerfreundlichkeit (p = 0,047) und Passgenauigkeit (p < 0,001).Ebenfalls randomisiert wurde in TP 2 die Konsistenz der Kodierung für 25 explizite Diagnosen mit kurzen epikritischen Fallbeschreibungen für ICD-11 und ICD-10 mittels WHO FiT-Tool *** erfasst (n = 531 Kodierungen von 120 Teilnehmenden). Entgegen der Hypothese fand sich eine unterlegene Konsistenz korrekter Kodierung für ICD-11 vs. ICD-10 (71 % vs. 82 %; p < 0,001) sowie ein höherer Zeitbedarf für ICD-11 (p < 0,001). Hingegen war die Nutzerbewertung für ICD-11 erneut überlegen (p < 0,005).Zusammenfassend weist die ICD-11 in der diagnostischen Güte bessere, in der Kodierleistung schlechtere Konsistenzergebnisse auf als ICD-10. Die Ergebnisse belegen, dass die revidierten diagnostischen Leitlinien die Qualität des diagnostischen Prozesses günstig beeinflussen, was durch die zeitlichen Leistungsmaße und Nutzerbeurteilungen gestützt wird. Demgegenüber fallen die Kodierleistungen für die ICD-11 noch zurück, was sowohl auf die mögliche höhere Kodierkomplexität (z. B. Komplex-Codes mit sog. „post-coordination“) als auch auf den ungeübten Umgang mit dem neuen Kodiertool für ICD-11 zurückzuführen sein dürfte. Dennoch wird der neue Kodierprozess aufgrund erweiterter und systematischerer Kodieroptionen günstiger beurteilt als für ICD-10. In den Verläufen der zeitlichen Leistungsmaße zeichnen sich überdies Lernerfolge für ICD-11 ab, die darauf hinweisen, dass eingehende Schulungs- und Trainingsmaßnahmen im Rahmen der künftigen Praxisimplementierung von ICD-11 nicht nur erforderlich, sondern auch erfolgreich sein dürften. Die über Diagnosekategorien hinweg variablen Konsistenzergebnisse weisen allerdings auch darauf hin, dass es in der gegenwärtigen Entwurfsfassung der ICD-11 noch Verbesserungspotenziale für Diagnostik und Kodierung gibt, die in abschließenden und kontinuierlichen Revisionsmaßnahmen i. S. eines „living document“ zu berücksichtigen sind.

Background/Objective: Intimate partner relationship problems and intimate partner abuse and neglect - referred to in this paper as "relational problems and maltreatment" - have substantial and well-documented impact on both physical and mental health. However, classification guidelines, such as those found in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10), are vague and unlikely to support consistent application. Revised guidelines proposed for ICD-11 are much more operationalized. We used standardized clinical vignette conditions with an international panel of clinicians to test if ICD-11 changes resulted in improved classification accuracy. Method: English-speaking mental health professionals (N = 738) from 65 nations applied ICD-10 or ICD-11 (proposed) guidelines with experimentally manipulated case presentations of presence or absence of (a) individual mental health diagnoses and (b) relational problems or maltreatment. Results: ICD-11, compared with ICD-10, guidelines resulted in significantly better classification accuracy, although only in the presence of co-morbid mental health problems. Clinician factors (e. g., gender, language, world region) largely did not impact classification performance. Conclusions: Despite being considerably more explicated, raters' performance with ICD-11 guidelines reveals training issues that should be addressed prior to the release of ICD-11 in 2018 (e. g., overriding the guidelines with pre-existing archetypes for relationship problems and physical and psychological abuse).