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

 By specifying/focusing on an arbitral jth row (j = 1, 2, 3,…), and by adding the components of the jth 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 jth row can be highlighted by values of 1 (and the components equivalent to those of the jth row can be denoted 0) according to modulo2 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 jth assessment (jth 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 4th row) = 31/81 = 0.3827 = 38.27 (%) could be regarded as a ratio for unstandardization of the jth assessment (psychiatrist). In the extreme right column, a value of 0 (or 1) means the equivalency (nonequivalency) of the respective diagnosis for an episode to the highlighted case (in this case, row 4); this also obeys modulo2 addition