The Clinical Interview for Depression: A Comprehensive Review of Studies and Clinimetric Properties

Abstract

Background: A comprehensive assessment of the wide spectrum of depressive symptomatology, particularly in its subclinical forms, is lacking in standard rating scales. There is also an emerging need for instruments that can detect small differences in therapeutic studies and have good sensitivity. The purpose of this paper is to review the clinimetric characteristics of Paykel’s Clinical Interview for Depression (CID) and to examine the results of the studies in which the interview has been used. Methods: Published reports which involved the use of the CID were identified by searching the following electronic databases: Medline, PsychINFO, EMBASE, and Web of Science. A manual search of the literature was also performed. Results: The initial strategies yielded 169 published reports for potential inclusion in the review: 98 are discussed here. The CID has been used extensively in a variety of studies, including descriptive studies, classification by means of factor analysis and cluster analysis, and predictor variables of response to treatment or relapse. The CID has also been used as an outcome measure in several controlled clinical trials and follow-up studies of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy of affective disorders. It has been shown to be valid and reliable, to discriminate depressives from controls, or different subgroups of depressed patients, and to reflect changes during the course of treatment, particularly when individual symptoms are considered. Conclusions: Evidence from these studies highlights the utility of the CID in clinical research and practice. Its clinimetric characteristics, particularly the broad evaluation of affective symptomatology and the sensitivity to change, make it an instrument of choice in therapeutic trials.

Subtyping demoralization in the medically ill by cluster analysis

“…However, his or her more chronic symptoms of anhedonia, social isolation, and poor concentration are suggestive of a coexisting depressive disorder 7 . There is growing opinion that, within clinical depression, traditional diagnostic systems do not allow differentiation between different mood states commonly experienced in medically ill patients 43,44 . Clarke and collegues 21,45,46 found evidence for different dimensions or types of depression, primarily distinguished by levels of demoralization (hopelessness, helplessness) and anhedonia (diminished interest and ability to experience pleasure).…”

The Sequential Combination of Cognitive Behavioral Treatment and Well-Being Therapy in Cyclothymic Disorder

“…First, the assessment is much broader than is currently performed [54]. It includes the wide spectrum of symptoms of the CID [22] and MAS [32], as well as constructs such as demoralization [55], irritable mood [56], alexithymia [57] and abnormal illness behavior [58,59], entailed by the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research [19]. Psychological well-being [13,41] and related constructs [60] are also object, by use of the diary, of the second half of therapy.…”

“…(1) A modified version of the Clinical Interview for Depression (CID; change version) [21,22]. The change version of the interview covers 20 symptom areas.…”

“…Each item is rated on a 1- to 7-point scale, with 1 indicating absence of symptoms and 7 severe incapacitating indicators. The scale includes a wide range (such as irritability and phobic anxiety) compared with other scales and is particularly suitable for assessing subclinical symptoms of mood disorders [14,15,16,17,22,23,24], also in view of its capacity to measure several increments or small changes near the normal end of the spectrum [22,25]. …”

“…(2) One item – reactivity to social environment – selected from the full version of the CID and scored separately, as it is allowed by this scale [22]. It refers to the changes in mood and symptomatology, either improvement or worsening, as a result of environmental circumstances, and is scored on a 7-point scale with specification of each anchor point based on severity, frequency and quality of mood variations.…”