Skip to Content
Interactive Textbook on Clinical Symptom Research Logo


Home Button

Somatization and Symptoms Evaluation
Author Bios
Introduction
Defining Somatization
Detecting Symptoms
Dimensions of Symptoms
Measuring Symptoms
Psychiatric Comorbidity
Interpreting Symptom Measures
Functional Syndromes and Symptoms
Etiology of Symptoms
Levels of Etiological Certainty
Currently selected section: Strengthening Etiological Classification
Confounding Etiological Factors
Symptoms and Patient Expectations
Interpreting Patient Responses
Measuring Multiple Symptoms
Global Rating of Change
Measuring Somatization
Measuring Other Domains
Conclusions


Chapter 16: Somatization and Symptoms Evaluation: Strengthening Etiological Classification
        

Investigators can take several steps to strengthen etiologic classification.

Explicit criteria for assigning symptoms to specific categories can be developed by review of the literature and by expert opinion. Explicit criteria for broad categories (physical, psychological, idiopathic) applicable to a variety of symptoms have been developed (Khan et al., 2000). There are also published examples of more precisely classifying the cause of a specific symptom, such as dizziness (Kroenke et al., 1992).

Since such criteria rely heavily on signs and symptoms obtained by patient interview and physical examination, softer data should be solidified by using:

  • Structured interviews;
  • Validated questionnaires; and
  • Standardized physical examinations.

Measurement bias can be further mitigated by training, calibration, and reliability checks of all study personnel responsible for obtaining this clinical data. Even then, explicit criteria are sometimes at best a "bronze standard", an operational or working definition to facilitate more uniform classification and reproducibility in subsequent studies (Drossman, 1999; Fukuda et al., 1994).

A second way to "harden" this relatively soft process of etiologic classification is to have multiple raters review the data and independently assign a cause, with any disagreements arbitrated by consensus. Because even experts differ substantially in their diagnostic preferences (Kroenke et al., 1992), etiologic classification that depends on one person reviewing the data may be unduly biased. Interobserver agreement can be calculated to provide an estimate of diagnostic reliability.

A third technique for fortifying classification is to develop a uniform abstract of all salient historical, physical, and laboratory data, so that each rater reviews the identical information. In fact, sequential review of these elements of the data with raters assigning a probable cause after each step may be useful in determining the incremental and independent contributions of historical, physical, and laboratory data toward establishing a diagnosis (Kroenke et al.,1992).

Page 16 of 26
Previous Section