View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

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

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Clinical validity and intrarater and test–retest reliability of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM‐5 – Clinician Version (SCID‐5‐CV).
Authors: Osório, Flávia L. (AUTHOR), Loureiro, Sonia Regina (AUTHOR), Hallak, Jaime Eduardo C. (AUTHOR), Machado‐de‐Sousa, João Paulo (AUTHOR), Ushirohira, Juliana M. (AUTHOR), Baes, Cristiane V. W. (AUTHOR), Apolinario, Thiago D. (AUTHOR), Donadon, Mariana F. (AUTHOR), Bolsoni, Livia M. (AUTHOR), Guimarães, Thiago (AUTHOR), Fracon, Victor S. (AUTHOR), Silva‐Rodrigues, Ana Paula Casagrande (AUTHOR), Pizeta, Fernanda Aguiar (AUTHOR), Souza, Roberto Mascarenhas (AUTHOR), Sanches, Rafael Faria (AUTHOR), dos Santos, Rafael G. (AUTHOR), Martin‐Santos, Rocio (AUTHOR), Crippa, José Alexandre S. (AUTHOR)
Source: Psychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences. Dec2019, Vol. 73 Issue 12, p754-760. 7p. 3 Charts.
Subjects: Statistical reliability, Interviewing, Test validity, Psychiatric practice, Medical history taking
Abstract: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Psychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: pbh
DbLabel: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
An: 140158067
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Clinical validity and intrarater and test–retest reliability of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM‐5 – Clinician Version (SCID‐5‐CV).
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Osório%2C+Flávia+L%2E%22">Osório, Flávia L.</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Loureiro%2C+Sonia+Regina%22">Loureiro, Sonia Regina</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hallak%2C+Jaime+Eduardo+C%2E%22">Hallak, Jaime Eduardo C.</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Machado‐de‐Sousa%2C+João+Paulo%22">Machado‐de‐Sousa, João Paulo</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ushirohira%2C+Juliana+M%2E%22">Ushirohira, Juliana M.</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Baes%2C+Cristiane+V%2E+W%2E%22">Baes, Cristiane V. W.</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Apolinario%2C+Thiago+D%2E%22">Apolinario, Thiago D.</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Donadon%2C+Mariana+F%2E%22">Donadon, Mariana F.</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bolsoni%2C+Livia+M%2E%22">Bolsoni, Livia M.</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Guimarães%2C+Thiago%22">Guimarães, Thiago</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fracon%2C+Victor+S%2E%22">Fracon, Victor S.</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Silva‐Rodrigues%2C+Ana+Paula+Casagrande%22">Silva‐Rodrigues, Ana Paula Casagrande</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pizeta%2C+Fernanda+Aguiar%22">Pizeta, Fernanda Aguiar</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Souza%2C+Roberto+Mascarenhas%22">Souza, Roberto Mascarenhas</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sanches%2C+Rafael+Faria%22">Sanches, Rafael Faria</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22dos+Santos%2C+Rafael+G%2E%22">dos Santos, Rafael G.</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Martin‐Santos%2C+Rocio%22">Martin‐Santos, Rocio</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Crippa%2C+José+Alexandre+S%2E%22">Crippa, José Alexandre S.</searchLink> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Psychiatry+%26+Clinical+Neurosciences%22">Psychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences</searchLink>. Dec2019, Vol. 73 Issue 12, p754-760. 7p. 3 Charts.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Statistical+reliability%22">Statistical reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interviewing%22">Interviewing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+validity%22">Test validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychiatric+practice%22">Psychiatric practice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Medical+history+taking%22">Medical history taking</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Psychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pbh&AN=140158067
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/pcn.12931
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 7
        StartPage: 754
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Statistical reliability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interviewing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychiatric practice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Medical history taking
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Clinical validity and intrarater and test–retest reliability of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM‐5 – Clinician Version (SCID‐5‐CV).
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Osório, Flávia L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Loureiro, Sonia Regina
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hallak, Jaime Eduardo C.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Machado‐de‐Sousa, João Paulo
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ushirohira, Juliana M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Baes, Cristiane V. W.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Apolinario, Thiago D.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Donadon, Mariana F.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bolsoni, Livia M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Guimarães, Thiago
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fracon, Victor S.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Silva‐Rodrigues, Ana Paula Casagrande
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pizeta, Fernanda Aguiar
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Souza, Roberto Mascarenhas
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sanches, Rafael Faria
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: dos Santos, Rafael G.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Martin‐Santos, Rocio
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Crippa, José Alexandre S.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Text: Dec2019
              Type: published
              Y: 2019
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 13231316
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 73
            – Type: issue
              Value: 12
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Psychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences
              Type: main
ResultId 1