Method
Thirty-five registered disabled persons after stroke were evaluated by two physiatrists to assess the grades of disability according to CDGG and PDGG, which were in use. The evaluations of disabled persons for the grading were done by the physiatrists through house-visit and at the hospital according to CDGG (hereinafter called CDGG-visit and CDGG-OPD) and PDGG (hereinafter called PDGG-grade). These re-evaluated disability grades were compared with the initial disability grades recorded in their disability registries.

Results
There was a low level of agreement between the registered grade and the re-evaluated grades; however, there has shown a high level of agreement amongst the re-evaluated grades. The degree in the registered grade was evaluated upward compared to the degree in other reevaluated grades.

Conclusion
The difference degree between CDGG and PDGG of established was insignificant; however, a new candidate who wants to be evaluated using CDGG has possibilities of facing unfairness when compared to the disabled people with relatively higher registered degrees. (J Korean Acad Rehab Med 2003; 27: 329-334)

ated disability grades were compared with the initial disability grades recorded in their disability registries.

Results
There was a low level of agreement between the registered grade and the re-evaluated grades; however, there has shown a high level of agreement amongst the re-evaluated grades. The degree in the registered grade was evaluated upward compared to the degree in other reevaluated grades.

Conclusion
The difference degree between CDGG and PDGG of established was insignificant; however, a new candidate who wants to be evaluated using CDGG has possibilities of facing unfairness when compared to the disabled people with relatively higher registered degrees. (J Korean Acad Rehab Med 2003; 27: 329-334)