[The Significance of Informant Discrepancies in Psychological Evaluation]

In the clinical practice and research of childhood and adolescent mental health disorders, there is a common practice of involving multiple informants, including parents, teachers, and the child or adolescent themselves. However, data obtained from these different sources typically show low to moderate levels of agreement. The aim of this study is to interpret the discrepancies between data provided by different informants in the diagnostic process of psychological disorders, and to examine which theoretical models can explain these discrepancies and what clinical significance they may hold.

In the course of this literature review, two interpretative frameworks are presented: first, the Operation Triad Model, which examines the identifiable patterns in the data derived from different informants, and second, the Attribution Bias Context Model, which organizes the possible causes of discrepancies among informants. The review placed particular emphasis on the clinical and prognostic relevance of the observed patterns.

The Operation Triad Model identifies three types of operations: convergent operations, where the data point in the same direction; compensatory operations, where divergent data suggest methodological issues; and divergent operations, where the data differ in a way that can be meaningfully interpreted and may provide valuable additional information. Divergent operations can contribute to the identification of new risk factors and facilitate a deeper, contextually grounded understanding of pathologies. Based on the findings, integrating data and discrepancies from multiple informants enriches the interpretation of psychopathological phenomena and enables more accurate prognosis.

The discrepant data obtained through the involvement of multiple informants cannot always be simply explained as measurement error but may reflect phenomena that contribute to a deeper understanding of the nature and context of symptoms. Integrating the conscious interpretation of these discrepancies into clinical practice can improve diagnostic accuracy and enhance the effectiveness of treatment planning.