Clinical validity and intrarater and test–retest reliability of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM‐5 – Clinician Version (SCID‐5‐CV)
Flávia L. Osório,Sonia Regina Loureiro,Jaime Eduardo C. Hallak,João Paulo Machado‐de‐Sousa,Juliana M. Ushirohira,Cristiane V. W. Baes,Thiago D. Apolinario,Mariana F. Donadon,Livia M. Bolsoni,Thiago Guimarães,Victor S. Fracon,Ana Paula Casagrande Silva‐Rodrigues,Fernanda Aguiar Pizeta,Roberto Mascarenhas Souza,Rafael Faria Sanches,Rafael G. dos Santos,Rocio Martin‐Santos,José Alexandre S. Crippa
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.12931
2019-10-14
Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences
Abstract:AimThe Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is one of the most used diagnostic instruments in clinical research worldwide. The current version of the instrument (SCID‐5‐CV) has not yet been assessed in respect to its psychometric qualities. We aim to assess the clinical validity and different reliability indicators (interrater test‐rest, 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. MethodsThe SCID‐5‐CV was administered face to face and by telephone by twelve psychiatrists/psychologists who took turns as raters and observers. Clinical diagnoses were established according to DSM‐5 criteria and the 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 73‐97% 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. ConclusionsThe 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.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
neurosciences,psychiatry,clinical neurology