Dataset Information

Reliability and validity of severity dimensions of psychopathology assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (SCID).

ABSTRACT: This study examined whether the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), a widely used semistructured interview designed to assess psychopathology categorically, can be adapted to identify reliable and valid severity dimensions of psychopathology. The present study also examined whether these severity dimensions have better psychometric properties (internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and concurrent and predictive validity) than categorical diagnoses. Participants (N = 234) were recruited from the community and clinics. Retest reliability and prospective predictive validity (symptoms and functioning 1 year later) were examined in subsamples of participants. Dimensional severity scales were created from an adapted version of the SCID for both current and lifetime major depression, alcohol, substance, post-traumatic stress disorder, panic, agoraphobia, social anxiety, specific phobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder. The SCID's severity scales demonstrated substantial internal consistency (all Cronbach's ?s >.80), test-retest reliability, and concurrent and predictive validity. Symptom severity scales demonstrated significant incremental validity over and above categorical diagnoses for both current and prospective outcomes. The psychometric properties of SCID-identified symptom scales were far superior to the psychometrics of categorical diagnoses for both current and lifetime psychopathology. These results highlight the feasibility and utility of the SCID to assess reliable and valid symptom severity dimensions of both current and lifetime psychopathology.

SUBMITTER: Shankman SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5834362 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reliability and validity of severity dimensions of psychopathology assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (SCID).

Shankman Stewart A SA Funkhouser Carter J CJ Klein Daniel N DN Davila Joanne J Lerner Debra D Hee Danelle D

International journal of methods in psychiatric research 20171016 1

This study examined whether the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), a widely used semistructured interview designed to assess psychopathology categorically, can be adapted to identify reliable and valid severity dimensions of psychopathology. The present study also examined whether these severity dimensions have better psychometric properties (internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and concurrent and predictive validity) than categorical diagnoses. Participants (N = 234) were r ...[more]

PMID: 29034525

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThis study assesses the reliability and validity of the DSM-5-based, semi-structured Clinical Parent Interview for Externalizing Disorders in Children and Adolescents (ILF-EXTERNAL).MethodParticipant data were drawn from the ongoing ESCAschool intervention study. The ILF-EXTERNAL was evaluated in a clinical sample of 474 children and adolescents (aged 6-12 years, 92 females) with symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). To obtain interrater reliability, the one-way random-effects, absolute agreement models of the intraclass correlation (ICC) for single ICC(1,1) and average measurements ICC(1,3) were computed between the interviewers and two independent raters for 45 randomly selected interviews involving ten interviewers. Overall agreement on DSM-5 diagnoses was assessed using Fleiss' kappa. Further analyses evaluated internal consistencies, item-total correlations as well as correlations between symptom severity and the degree of functional impairment. Additionally, parents completed the German version of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and two DSM-5-based parent questionnaires for the assessment of ADHD symptoms and symptoms of disruptive behavior disorders (FBB-ADHS; FBB-SSV), which were used to evaluate convergent and divergent validity.ResultsICC coefficients demonstrated very good to excellent interrater reliability on the item and scale level of the ILF-EXTERNAL [scale level: ICC(1,1) = 0.83-0.95; ICC(1,3) = 0.94-0.98]. Overall kappa agreement on DSM-5 diagnoses was substantial to almost perfect for most disorders (0.38 ≤ κ ≤ 0.94). With some exceptions, internal consistencies (0.60 ≤ α ≤ 0.86) and item-total correlations (0.21 ≤ r it ≤ 0.71) were generally satisfactory to good. Furthermore, higher symptom severity was associated with a higher degree of functional impairment. The evaluation of convergent validity revealed positive results regarding clinical judgment and parent ratings (FBB-ADHS; FBB-SSV). Correlations between the ILF-EXTERNAL scales and the CBCL Externalizing Problems were moderate to high. Finally, the ILF-EXTERNAL scales were significantly more strongly associated with the CBCL Externalizing Problems than with the Internalizing Problems, indicating divergent validity.ConclusionIn clinically referred, school-age children, the ILF-EXTERNAL demonstrates sound psychometric properties. The ILF-EXTERNAL is a promising clinical interview and contributes to high-quality diagnostics of externalizing disorders in children and adolescents.

Project description:Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV) criteria for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) specify two dimensions of inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms that are used to define three nominal subtypes: predominantly hyperactive-impulsive type (ADHD-H), predominantly inattentive type (ADHD-I), and combined type (ADHD-C). To aid decision making for DSM-5 and other future diagnostic systems, a comprehensive literature review and meta-analysis of 546 studies was completed to evaluate the validity of the DSM-IV model of ADHD. Results indicated that DSM-IV criteria identify individuals with significant and persistent impairment in social, academic, occupational, and adaptive functioning when intelligence, demographic factors, and concurrent psychopathology are controlled. Available data overwhelmingly support the concurrent, predictive, and discriminant validity of the distinction between inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms, and indicate that nearly all differences among the nominal subtypes are consistent with the relative levels of inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms that define the subtypes. In contrast, the DSM-IV subtype model is compromised by weak evidence for the validity of ADHD-H after first grade, minimal support for the distinction between ADHD-I and ADHD-C in studies of etiological influences, academic and cognitive functioning, and treatment response, and the marked longitudinal instability of all three subtypes. Overall, we conclude that the DSM-IV ADHD subtypes provide a convenient clinical shorthand to describe the functional and behavioral correlates of current levels of inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms, but do not identify discrete subgroups with sufficient long-term stability to justify the classification of distinct forms of the disorder. Empirical support is stronger for an alternative model that would replace the subtypes with dimensional modifiers that reflect the number of inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms at the time of assessment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).

Dataset Information

Reliability and validity of severity dimensions of psychopathology assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (SCID).

Publications

Reliability and validity of severity dimensions of psychopathology assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (SCID).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets