Specifically, the study was designed to determine (1) if previous findings of acceptable inter-rater reliability with the Dangerous Behaviour Rating Scheme (DBRS) could be confirmed with different coders, (2) if the coders' analysis of videotaped records of the psychiatrists' interviews accords with judgments formed by the interviewing psychiatrist, and (3) if coders are capable of forming judgments even when the amount of information available to them is sharply limited (to the audio channel or to the visual channel). Nine male patients were interviewed by the same forensic psychiatrist. Three pairs of nonclinical coders completed the DBRS based on the following media encounters with the interview: audio-visual, audio only, and visual only. Correspondence between the composite dangerousness rating scores of the two coders in each of the groups was reasonably acceptable, and there was good correspondence between the mean scores of the three pairs. The ratings of the coders compared with the psychiatrist-interviewer shows the psychiatrist to be generally in line with the coders, although he was less inclined to impute dangerousness to the patients than were the coders. The study concludes that the data confirm the earlier finding of the acceptable reliability of the use of the DBRS. The validity of the scale will be determined from followup data. Graphic data and four references are provided.