This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor.
— I feel it necessary to reply to the comments on my article (Archives 1979;36:740-745) made by Walter Reich in his letter "Kazanetz, Schizophrenia, and Soviet Psychiatry" (Archives 1979;36:1029-1030). I am late in responding to his letter because I had no opportunity to acquaint myself with it at the proper time.First of all, let me address the point raised by Reich, concerning "difficulties of a methodological and substantive nature." He questions the validity of my findings (that "approach perfection or near perfection") in support of Kraepelin's nosologic approach. In so doing, Reich refers to a situation" not uncommon in Soviet psychiatric studies...carried out by researchers who, it seems, may sometimes be influenced in what they find and in what they conclude by the hypothesis at hand." As far as my study is concerned, let me emphasize that the "nearly perfect" agreement between the results of computer and clinical diagnoses cannot be explained by a biased interpretation.
Kazanetz EP. 'Kazanetz, Schizophrenia, and Soviet Psychiatry': A Reply. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1982;39(3):355. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1982.04290030079015