Clinical validity and intrarater and test–retest reliability of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM‐5 – Clinician Version (SCID‐5‐CV)

Aim The Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM is one of the most used diagnostic instruments in clinical research worldwide. The current Clinician Version of the instrument (SCID‐5‐CV) has not yet been assessed in respect to its psychometric qualities. We aimed to assess the clinical validity an...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences Jg. 73; H. 12; S. 754 - 760
Hauptverfasser: Osório, Flávia L., Loureiro, Sonia Regina, Hallak, Jaime Eduardo C., Machado‐de‐Sousa, João Paulo, Ushirohira, Juliana M., Baes, Cristiane V. W., Apolinario, Thiago D., Donadon, Mariana F., Bolsoni, Livia M., Guimarães, Thiago, Fracon, Victor S., Silva‐Rodrigues, Ana Paula Casagrande, Pizeta, Fernanda Aguiar, Souza, Roberto Mascarenhas, Sanches, Rafael Faria, dos Santos, Rafael G., Martin‐Santos, Rocio, Crippa, José Alexandre S.
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: Melbourne John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 01.12.2019
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
Schlagworte:
Agreements
Clinical medicine
clinical validity
Interviews
joint interview
reliability
Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM‐5 – Clinician Version
test–retest
Validity
joint interview
Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 - Clinician Version
reliability
test-retest
clinical validity
ISSN:1323-1316, 1440-1819, 1440-1819
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Aim The Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM is one of the most used diagnostic instruments in clinical research worldwide. The current Clinician Version of the instrument (SCID‐5‐CV) has not yet been assessed in respect to its psychometric qualities. We aimed to assess the clinical validity and different reliability indicators (interrater test–retest, joint interview, face‐to‐face vs telephone application) of the SCID‐5‐CV in a large sample of 180 non‐prototypical and psychiatric patients based on interviews conducted by raters with different levels of clinical experience. Methods The SCID‐5‐CV was administered face‐to‐face and by telephone by 12 psychiatrists/psychologists who took turns as raters and observers. Clinical diagnoses were established according to DSM‐5 criteria and the longitudinal, expert, all data (LEAD) procedure. We calculated the percentage of agreement, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, and the level of agreement (kappa) for diagnostic categories and specific diagnoses. Results The percentage of positive agreement between the interview and clinical diagnoses ranged between 73% and 97% and the diagnostic sensitivity/specificity were >0.70. In the joint interview, the levels of positive agreement were high (>75%) and kappa levels were >0.70 for most diagnoses. The values were less expressive, but still adequate, for interrater test–retest interviews. Conclusion The SCID‐5‐CV presented excellent reliability and high specificity as assessed with different methods. The clinical validity of the instrument was also confirmed, which supports its use in daily clinical practice. We highlight the adequacy of the instrument to be used via telephone and the need for careful use by professionals with little experience in psychiatric clinical practice.
Bibliographie:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-3
ISSN:1323-1316
1440-1819
1440-1819
DOI:10.1111/pcn.12931