Renard Diagnostic Interview

Helzer, John E.; Robins, Lee N.; Croughan, Jack; Welner, Amos

doi:10.1037/t04761-000

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One is acknowledged in passing by Brugha et al in their editorial : that the reliability of the SCAN has not been established in community samples. The other is that respondent fatigue leads to lower prevalence estimates in community survey reinterviews than initial interviews (Helzer et al 1981). Importantly, this pattern of lower prevalences in reinterviews has been found even when the same semi-structured clinical interview was administered twice (Bromet et al 1986).…”

Section: The Validity Of Clinical Validation Studies In Community Sammentioning

confidence: 90%

Diagnosing mental disorders in the community. A difference that matters?

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Brugha and his colleagues in this issue raise important questions about the validity of standardized diagnostic interviews of mental disorders, such as the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) (WHO, 1990). Although their concerns refer predominantly to the use of such instruments in epidemiological research, the authors' conclusions also have significant implications for diagnostic assessments in clinical practice and research. We agree with Brugha et al. that the inflexible approach to questioning used in standardized interviews can lead to an increased risk of invalidity with regard to some diagnoses. We also agree that the use of more semi-structured clinical questions has the potential to address this problem. However, we disagree with Brugha et al. in several other respects.First, we disagree with the authors' initial exclusive emphasis on diagnosis with regard to need assessment and consequences for the allocation of service resources. It is becoming increasingly clear that knowledge about diagnosis does not, in itself, whether assessed by clinical or non-clinical diagnostic interviews, provide sufficient information we need for policy purposes and the determination of societal costs, or to judge clinical management guidelines and treatment needs (Regier et al. 1998). Additional, preferably dimensional, data on associated disabilities and distress as well as a focused need evaluation for those psychosocial, psychological and drug interventions that characterize modern treatment strategies are also important. It also has become evident that a great many people in the general population carry more than one diagnosis. This ‘co-morbidity’ complicates further such simple equation of diagnosis prevalence with need assessment and policy decisions. Secondly, we disagree with the conclusion of Brugha et al. that the use of a semi-structured clinical interview, like the most current version of the Structured Clinical Assessment for Neuropsychiatry (SCAN), whether in the hands of clinical or non-clinical interviewers, is most closely approximating the ‘clinical gold standard’ and is the most feasible way to correct the problem of disagreement between semi-structured clinical diagnostic interviews and standardized diagnostic interviews. We believe that the practical reliability and validity problems associated with using such a clinical interviewing approach especially in large-scale community surveys as well as in cross-national research more than cancel out any theoretical advantage this approach might have in clarifying meaning. Thirdly, we disagree with the suggestion of Brugha et al. that the problem of validity is inherent in standardized non-clinician interviews. Indeed, as detailed below, there is no evidence that across all diagnoses clinical semi-structured interviews reveal more promising psychometric properties than standardized interviews. Also methodological research shows quite clearly that a substantial number of potential validity problems in standardized interviews can be overcome.

show abstract

Section: The Validity Of Clinical Validation Studies In Community Sammentioning

confidence: 90%

Diagnosing mental disorders in the community. A difference that matters?

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rice used the index diagnosis and a forward prediction paradigm to characterize stability over time, whereas Kendler used the follow-up diagnosis and a backward prediction paradigm. It is not clear, however, if a depressive history endorsed at index is equivalent in liability to one endorsed at follow-up given the lower re-test prevalence of negative affective states surveyed by rating scales (Jorm et al 1989) and interviews (Helzer et al 1981 ;Bromet et al 1986, Eaton et al 1989). Secondly, Kendler used different diagnostic criteria to assign a LTH of MD at time 1 and 2.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of a lifetime history of major depression: implications for heritability and co-morbidity

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Abstainers are excluded. The resulting numbers for the total sample are 13 (naltrexone/coping skills), 8 (naltrexone/supportive), 18 (placebo/coping skills), and 19 (placebo/supportive). The numbers for the completer sample are 12 (naltrexone/coping skills), 6 (naltrexone/ supportive), 10 (placebo/coping skills), and 11 (placebo/supportive).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%