# Table 9 Illustration highlighting incongruent scores on Criterion A

Symptom number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   Episode
row 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 (mod 2) 0
row 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 (mod 2) 1
row 3 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 (mod 2) 1
row 4 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 (mod 2) 1
row 5 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 (mod 2) 1
row 6 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 (mod 2) 0
row 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (mod 2) 0
row 8 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 (mod 2) 1
row 9 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 (mod 2) 1
row 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (mod 2) 0
Total sum (except for row 4) 5 1 4 4 3 2 7 4 1   5
Average (except for row 4) 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.1   0.5
1. By specifying/focusing on an arbitral j-th row (j = 1, 2, 3,…), and by adding the components of the j-th row to all other rows individually, the components for which scores (meaning presence/absence of symptoms, effectiveness/ineffectiveness of symptoms and so on) are different from those of the j-th row can be highlighted by values of 1 (and the components equivalent to those of the j-th row can be denoted 0) according to modulo-2 arithmetic (especially, addition). If a total of 10 diagnoses are made by 10 psychiatrists for the same patient in the same session, the count of values of 1 indicates the degree of fluctuation of standardization of the j-th assessment (j-th psychiatrist). Row (patient/session) 4 in Table 1 is taken as an example (highlighted in silver). Apart from the extreme right column, 31 (count of the value 1) divided by 81 cells (= ‘10 – 1’ (rows) × 9 (items)) (that for the other nine psychiatrists; except for 4-th row) = 31/81 = 0.3827 = 38.27 (%) could be regarded as a ratio for unstandardization of the j-th assessment (psychiatrist). In the extreme right column, a value of 0 (or 1) means the equivalency (non-equivalency) of the respective diagnosis for an episode to the highlighted case (in this case, row 4); this also obeys modulo-2 addition