Skip Navigation

American Journal of Epidemiology 2004 160(8):808-813; doi:10.1093/aje/kwh283
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Robins, L. N.
Right arrow Articles by Cottler, L. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Robins, L. N.
Right arrow Articles by Cottler, L. B.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Copyright © 2004 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

PRACTICE OF EPIDEMIOLOGY

Making a Structured Psychiatric Diagnostic Interview Faithful to the Nomenclature

Lee N. Robins  and Linda B. Cottler

From the Department of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.

Psychiatric diagnostic interviews to be used in epidemiologic studies by lay interviewers have, since the 1970s, attempted to operationalize existing psychiatric nomenclatures. How to maximize the chances that they do so successfully has not previously been spelled out. In this article, the authors discuss strategies for each of the seven steps involved in writing, updating, or modifying a diagnostic interview and its supporting materials: 1) writing questions that match the nomenclature’s criteria, 2) checking that respondents will be willing and able to answer the questions, 3) choosing a format acceptable to interviewers that maximizes accurate answering and recording of answers, 4) constructing a data entry and cleaning program that highlights errors to be corrected, 5) creating a diagnostic scoring program that matches the nomenclature’s algorithms, 6) developing an interviewer training program that maximizes reliability, and 7) computerizing the interview. For each step, the authors discuss how to identify errors, correct them, and validate the revisions. Although operationalization will never be perfect because of ambiguities in the nomenclature, specifying methods for minimizing divergence from the nomenclature is timely as users modify existing interviews and look forward to updating interviews based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, and the International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision.

cohort studies; data collection; epidemiologic methods; interviews; mental disorders; psychiatry

Abbreviations: Abbreviations: CIDI, Composite International Diagnostic Interview; DIS, Diagnostic Interview Schedule.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Arch Gen PsychiatryHome page
L. B. Cottler
Drug Use Disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey: Have We Come a Long Way?
Arch Gen Psychiatry, March 1, 2007; 64(3): 380 - 381.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch Gen PsychiatryHome page
L. N. Robins
Using Survey Results to Improve the Validity of the Standard Psychiatric Nomenclature
Arch Gen Psychiatry, December 1, 2004; 61(12): 1188 - 1194.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.