Assessment of Clinical Information: Comparison of the Validity of a Structured Clinical Interview (the Scid) and the Clinical Diagnostic Interview
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease
Adaptive functioning is a key aspect of psychiatric diagnosis and assessment in research and practice. This study compared adaptive functioning validity ratings from Structured Clinical Interviews (SCIDs, symptom-focused structured diagnostic interviews), and Clinical Diagnostic Interviews (CDIs, systematic diagnostic interviews modeling naturalistic clinical interactions focusing on relational narratives). Two hundred forty-five patients (interviewed by two independent interviewers) and their interviewers completed the Clinical Data Form which assesses adaptive functioning and clinical information. Both interviews converged strongly with patient-reports, with no significant differences in validity of the interviews in measuring global and specific domains of adaptive functioning variables. Findings suggest that CDIs provide adaptive functioning data comparable to SCIDs (often considered "gold standard" for assessment but difficult to use in practice) and have important implications for bridging the research-practice gap. By incorporating clinicians' everyday methods, CDIs yield information that is psychometrically sound for empirical investigation, diagnostically practical, and clinically meaningful and valid.
Assessment, structured clinical interview, systematic clinical interview, validity
Drill, Rebecca; Nakash, Ora; Defife, Jared A.; and Westen, Drew, "Assessment of Clinical Information: Comparison of the Validity of a Structured Clinical Interview (the Scid) and the Clinical Diagnostic Interview" (2015). School for Social Work: Faculty Publications, Smith College, Northampton, MA.
Peer reviewed accepted manuscript.