Hostname: page-component-55f67697df-2z2hb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-11T00:52:36.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Procedural validity of the computerized version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI-Auto) in the anxiety disorders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2009

Lorna Peters  and
Gavin Andrews
Lorna Peters*
Affiliation:
Clinical Research Unit for Anxiety Disorders, University of New South Wales at St Vincent's Hospital, NSW, Australia
Gavin Andrews
Affiliation:
Clinical Research Unit for Anxiety Disorders, University of New South Wales at St Vincent's Hospital, NSW, Australia
*
1Address for correspondence: Dr Lorna Peters, Clinical Research Unit for Anxiety Disorders, 299 Forbes Street, Darlinghurst, NSW 2010, Australia.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Synopsis

The procedural validity of the computerized version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI-Auto) was examined against the consensus diagnoses of two clinicians for six anxiety disorders (agoraphobia, panic disorder (±agoraphobia), social phobia, simple phobia, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and major depressive episode (MDE)). Clinicians had available to them all data obtained over a 2- to 10-month period. Subjects were 98 patients accepted for treatment at an Anxiety Disorders Clinic, thus, all subjects had at least one of the diagnoses being examined. While the CIDI-Auto detected 88·2% of the clinician diagnoses, it identified twice as many diagnoses as did the clinicians. The sensitivity of the CIDI-Auto was above 0·85 except for GAD, which had a sensitivity of 0·29. The specificity of the CIDI-Auto was lower (range: 0·47–0·99). The agreement between the CIDI-Auto and the clinician diagnoses, as measured by intraclass kappas, ranged from poor (k = 0·02; GAD) to excellent (k = 0·81; OCD), with a fair level of agreement overall (k = 0·40). Canonical correlation analysis suggested that the discrepancies between the CIDI-Auto and clinicians were not due to different diagnostic distinctions being made. It is suggested that the CIDI-Auto may have a lower threshold for diagnosing anxiety disorders than do experienced clinicians. It is concluded that, in a sample where all subjects have at least one anxiety disorder diagnosis, the CIDI-Auto has acceptable validity.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Psychological Medicine , Volume 25 , Issue 6 , November 1995 , pp. 1269 - 1280
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association (1980). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd edn.). APA: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association (1987). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd edn.—Revised). APA: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Andrews, G., Peters, L., Guzman, A.-M. & Bird, K. (1995). A comparison of two structured diagnostic interviews: CIDI and SCAN. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 29, 124–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bird, K. D. (1994). A Kappa Coefficient for Non-exclusive Categories. Working Paper 94/1. School of Psychology, University of New South Wales: Sydney.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cottler, L. B., Robins, L. N., Grant, B. F., Blaine, J., Towle, L. H., Wittchen, H.-U., Sartorius, N. and the participants in the WHO/ADAHMA Field Trial (1991). The CIDI-Core substance abuse and dependence questions: cross-cultural and nosological issues. British Journal of Psychiatry 159, 653–658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farmer, A. E., Katz, R., McGriffin, P. & Bebbington, P. (1987). A comparison between the Present State Exam and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Archives of General Psychiatry 44, 1064–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleiss, J. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin 76, 378–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, R. J. (1985). A Primer of Multivariate Statistics. Academic Press: Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
Hasin, D. S. & Skodol, A. E. (1989). Standardized diagnostic interviews for psychiatric research. In The Instruments of Psychiatric Research (ed. Thompson, C.), pp. 19–51. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester.Google Scholar
Helzer, J. E., Robins, L. N., McEvoy, L. T., Spitznagel, E. L., Stolzman, R. K., Farmer, A. E. & Brockington, I. F. (1985). A comparison of clinical and Diagnostic Interview Schedule diagnoses. Archives of General Psychiatry 42, 657–666.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunt, C. & Andrews, G. (1993). Drop-out as a performance indicator in psychotherapy. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 85, 275–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, C. & Andrews, G. (1995). Unravelling Comorbidity: The Life-Chart Approach. Journal of Psychiatric Research (in the press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janca, A., Robins, L. N., Cottler, L. B. & Early, T. S. (1992). Clinical observation of assessment using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI): an analysis of the CIDI Field Trials–Wave II at the St Louis site. British Journal of Psychiatry 160, 815–818.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kraemer, H. C. (1980). Extension of the kappa coefficient. Biometrics 36, 207–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kraemer, H. C. & Bloch, D. A. (1988). Kappa coefficients in epidemiology: an appraisal of a reappraisal. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 41, 959–968.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kranzler, H. R., Rounsaville, B. J., Kadden, R. M. & Babor, T. F. (1994). Use of the ‘LEAD’ procedure for psychiatric diagnosis in patients with psychoactive substance use disorders. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 182, 277–283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leitmeyer, P. (1990). Zür Symptomerfässung mit demstandardisierten Interview CIDI in der Allgemeinpraxis. Unpublished dissertation. University of Mannheim.Google Scholar
Marascuilo, L. A. & Levin, J. R. (1988). Multivariate Statistics in the Social Sciences: A Researcher's Guide. Brooks/Cole: Monterey.Google Scholar
Pilkonis, P. A., Heape, C. L., Ruddy, J. & Serrao, P. (1991). Validity in the diagnosis of personality disorders: the use of the LEAD standard. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 3, 46–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robins, L. N. (1989). Diagnostic grammar and assessment: translating criteria into questions. Psychological Medicine 19, 57–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robins, L. N., Helzer, J. E., Croughan, J. & Ratcliff, S. (1981). National Institute of Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule: its history, characteristics, and validity. Archives of General Psychiatry 38, 381–390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Semler, G., Wittchen, H.-U., Joschke, K., Zaudig, M., von Geiso, T., Kaiser, S., von Cranach, M. & Pfister, H. (1987). Test–retest reliability of a standardized psychiatric interview (DIS/CIDI). European Archives of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences 236, 214–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spitzer, R. L. (1983). Psychiatric diagnosis: are clinicians still necessary? Comprehensive Psychiatry 24, 399–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spitzer, R. L. & Williams, J. B. W. (1980). Classification in psychiatry. In Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry (ed. Kaplan, H. I., Freedman, A. M. and Sadock, B. J.), pp. 1035–1050. Williams & Wilkins: Baltimore.Google Scholar
Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., Gibbon, M. & First, M. (1990). Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R. American Psychiatric Press: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Spitznagel, E. L. & Helzer, J. E. (1985). A proposed solution to the base rate problem in the kappa statistic. Archives of General Psychiatry 42, 725–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. B. W., Gibbon, M., First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Davies, M., Borus, J., Howes, M. J., Kane, J., Pope, H. G., Rounsaville, B. & Wittchen, H.-U. (1992). The structured clinical interview for DSM-III-R (SCID): II. Multisite test–retest reliability. Archives of General Psychiatry 49, 630–636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wittchen, H.-U. (1994). Reliability and validity studies of the WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI): a critical review. Journal of Psychiatric Research 28, 57–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wittchen, H.-U., Robins, L. N., Cottler, L. B., Sartorius, N., Burke, J. D., Regier, D. & participants in the multicentre WHO/ADAMHA field trials. (1991). Cross-cultural feasibility, reliability and sources of variance of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). British Journal of Psychiatry 159, 645–653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wittchen, H.-U., Essau, C. A., Rief, W. & Fichter, M. M. (1993). Assessment of somatoform disorders and comorbidity pattern with the CIDI: findings in psychosomatic patients. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 3, 87–100.Google Scholar
World Health Organization. (1990). CIDI Core Computer Manual for Data Entry and Diagnostic Programs for the CIDI. (Version 1.0, Rev. 4). WHO: Geneva.Google Scholar
World Health Organization. (1992). Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry. WHO: Geneva.Google Scholar
World Health Organization. (1993 a). The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Diagnostic Criteria for Research. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
World Health Organization. (1993 b). CIDI-Auto Version 1.0: Administrator's Guide. Training and Reference Centre for WHO CIDI: Sydney.Google Scholar