A Comparison of Two Structured Diagnostic Interviews: CIDI and SCAN

Andrews, Gavin; Peters, Lorna; Guzman, Ana Maria; Bird, Kevin D.

doi:10.3109/00048679509075901

Cited by 96 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A few investigators have argued that, at this stage of development, it is not appropriate to choose between the two approaches to interviewing. They have therefore argued against reporting sensitivity and specificity, as this requires that one measure be the standard against which to judge the other (Andrews et al 1995). However, most authorities probably agree that a systematic clinical assessment is the standard by which to assess lay measures (Spitzer, 1983 ;Anthony et al 1985 ;Helzer et al 1985 ;Romanoski et al 1988 ;Wittchen, 1994 ;Kessler et al 1998).…”

Section: The Difference Between the Two Methods Of Systematic Intervimentioning

confidence: 99%

A difference that matters: comparisons of structured and semi-structured psychiatric diagnostic interviews in the general population

Brugha¹,

Bebbington²,

Jenkins³

1999

Psychol. Med.

177

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychiatric case-identification in general populations allows us to study both individuals with functional psychiatric disorders and the populations from which they come. The individual level of analysis permits disorders to be related to factors of potential aetiological significance and the study of attributes of the disorders that need to be assessed in non-referred populations (an initially scientific endeavour). At the population level valid case identification can be used to evaluate needs for treatment and the utilization of service resources (a public health project). Thus, prevalence is of interest both to scientists and to those responsible for commissioning and planning services (Brugha et al. 1997; Regier et al. 1998). The quality of case identification techniques and of estimates of prevalence is thus of general concern (Bartlett & Coles, 1998).Structured diagnostic interviews were introduced into general population surveys in the 1970s as a method ‘to enable interviewers to obtain psychiatric diagnoses comparable to those a psychiatrist would obtain’ (Robins et al. 1981). The need to develop reliable standardized measures was partly driven by an earlier generation of prevalence surveys showing rates ranging widely from 10·9% (Pasamanick et al. 1956) to 55% (Leighton et al. 1963) in urban and rural North American communities respectively. If the success of large scale psychiatric epidemiological enquiries using structured diagnostic interviews and standardized classifications is measured in terms of citation rates it would seem difficult to question. But the development of standardized interviews of functional psychiatric disorders has not solved this problem of variability: the current generation of large scale surveys, using structured diagnostic interviews and serving strictly defined classification rules, have generated, for example, 12-month prevalence rates of major depression in the US of 4·2% (Robins & Regier, 1991) and 10·1% (Kessler et al. 1994). This calls into question the validity of the assessments, such that we must reopen the question of what they should be measuring and how they should do it.

show abstract

Section: The Difference Between the Two Methods Of Systematic Intervimentioning

confidence: 99%

A difference that matters: comparisons of structured and semi-structured psychiatric diagnostic interviews in the general population

Brugha¹,

Bebbington²,

Jenkins³

1999

Psychol. Med.

177

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The interviews were administered by two psychiatrists (EDM, FJT) trained and certified at the WHO centre in Groningen, the Netherlands. Most of the studies about the psychometric properties of the SCAN have only examined earlier versions or parts of the current version [1,27]. Rijnders et al [29] tested the psychometric properties of the integral SCAN 2.1.…”

Section: Dsm-iv Axis-i Diagnosismentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of the WHO Quality of Life assessment instrument (WHOQOL-100) in a population of Dutch adult psychiatric outpatients

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. -Research concerning the psychometric properties of the WHO Quality of Life Assessment Instrument (WHOQOL-100) in general populations of psychiatric outpatients has not been performed systematically.Aims. -To examine the content validity, construct validity, and reliability of the WHOQOL-100 in a general population of Dutch adult psychiatric outpatients.Method. -A total of 533 psychiatric outpatients entered the study (438 randomly selected, 85 internally referred). Participants completed self-administered questionnaires for measuring quality of life (WHOQOL-100), psychopathological symptoms (SCL-90), and perceived social support (PSSS). In addition, they underwent two semi-structured interviews in order to obtain Axis-I and Axis-II diagnoses, according to DSM-IV.Results. -The drop-out percentage was low (7.1%). Of the 24 facets of the WHOQOL-100, 22 had a good distribution of scores, leaving out the facets physical environment and transport. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a four-factor structure, which was similar to earlier findings in patients with specific somatic diseases and depressive disorders. Various-a priori expected-positive and negative correlations were found between facets and domains of the WHOQOL-100, and dimensions of the SCL-90 and the PSSS-score, indicating good construct validity of the WHOQOL-100. The internal consistency of all facets and the four domains of the WHOQOL-100 was good (Cronbach's alpha's ranging from 0.62 to 0.93 and 0.64 to 0.84, respectively). Sparse and relatively low correlations were found between demographic characteristics (age and sex) and WHOQOL-100 scores.Conclusions. -Content validity, construct validity, and reliability of the WHOQOL-100 in a population of adult Dutch psychiatric outpatients are good. The WHOQOL-100 appears to be a suitable instrument for measuring quality of life in adult psychiatric outpatients.

show abstract

“…However, the results of CIDI clinical reappraisal studies varied across other settings. Some studies showed the CIDI diagnoses to have poor agreement with diagnoses based on the SCAN clinical interview (Wing et al, 1990) in a community sample (Brugha et al, 2001) and others showing agreement to be either good (Andrews et al, 1995) in a patient sample or excellent (Jordanova et al, 2004) in a primary care provider sample. This variation in results raises, with much higher concordance in patient samples than community samples, raises the possibility that respondent motivation is more of an issue than problems with question wording.…”

Section: B Responding To the Challenges: Validity Of Diagnosesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychiatric epidemiology: Challenges and opportunities

Kessler

2007

International Review of Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses challenges and prospects for increasing the clinical relevance of psychiatric epidemiological research. The discussion begins with a review of the structural determinants of the fact that current psychiatric epidemiological research has less clinical relevance that epidemiological research in other areas of medicine. The discussion then turns to ways in which the focus of psychiatric epidemiological research might be changed to increase its clinical relevance. A review is then presented of recent innovations in community psychiatric epidemiological research that were designed to increase clinical relevance. An argument is then made that the full clinical value of psychiatric epidemiology will only be realized when community epidemiology becomes better integrated with clinical epidemiology and the latter takes on a more prominent role than it currently has in psychiatric research. Existing initiatives to realize an integration of community psychiatric epidemiology with clinical epidemiology are then reviewed. Finally, an agenda is proposed for an expansion of clinical psychiatric epidemiology to include a focus on both naturalistic and quasiexperimental studies of illness course and treatment response in diverse clinical samples. KeywordsMental illness; Psychiatric epidemiology; epidemiology; clinical epidemiology; World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative I was asked to prepare a paper on the challenges of using epidemiology to inform clinical practice in psychiatry because of my involvement in recently published exchanges about the clinical value (or lack thereof) of the WHO World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative (Jorm, 2006;Kessler, 2006; Kessler et al., in press-b;Weich and Araya, 2004). The WMH Survey Initiative (henceforth WMH) is a project of the Assessment, Classification, and Evaluation (ACE) Group at the WHO that involves the implementation, coordination, and centralized analysis of data from a series of psychiatric epidemiological surveys in more than two dozen countries around the world. (www.hcp.med.harvard.edu/wmh.) I am one of the WMH co-directors.Psychiatric epidemiologists have done quite a bit over the past two decades to increase the clinical relevance of their research. The vast majority of this work has been carried out in general population samples. The potential for clinical relevance is much greater, though, for epidemiological research carried out in clinical samples. In this paper I review recent developments in community psychiatric epidemiology related to clinical relevance. I also sketch out a research agenda for clinical psychiatric epidemiology aimed at increasing clinical relevance. Before turning to these topics, though, it is important to define some basic terms and to discuss the overarching practical challenges faced by psychiatric epidemiologists as they attempt to increase the clinical relevance of their research.

show abstract

A Comparison of Two Structured Diagnostic Interviews: CIDI and SCAN

Cited by 96 publications

References 11 publications

A difference that matters: comparisons of structured and semi-structured psychiatric diagnostic interviews in the general population

A difference that matters: comparisons of structured and semi-structured psychiatric diagnostic interviews in the general population

Validation of the WHO Quality of Life assessment instrument (WHOQOL-100) in a population of Dutch adult psychiatric outpatients

Psychiatric epidemiology: Challenges and opportunities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About