The English original form of a standardized social interview was presented by Clare and Cairns (1978). The German version is described with regard to concept, structure, and methodology. The interview is designed to assess social maladjustment by measuring three conceptual categories (“Objective Material Conditions,” “Social Management,” and “Satisfaction”) in eight role areas. The instrument is especially suited for outcome assessment in various clinical and non-clinical populations and takes an average of about 30–45 min to complete. The 39 items are rated on 4-point scales either by the interviewer with the help of an extensive rating manual, or by the subject himself (all “Satisfaction” items). The results of a reliability study are presented using both the test-retest and the interrater method. In general, the results show that the instrument is satisfactorily reliable, but some possible weaknesses are discussed. Finally, the structure of the instrument is examined by an analysis of interrelationships between the items in a normal population sample. The results are discussed with regard to questions of score construction.

Little is known about how psychotherapy patients perceive and evaluate computer-assisted diagnostic interviews for mental disorders. Using the World Health Organization's Composite International Diagnostic Interview in its computer-administered form, psychologists interviewed 236 psychotherapy patients, who evaluated the interview with regard to content, comprehensibility, and acceptance. More than 87% of patients evaluated the interview positively. Higher symptom severity and comorbidity, but not depression, were associated with a slightly lower but still favorable appraisal. The results indicate that the use of computerized clinical diagnostic interviews, previously usually restricted to research, seems to be a time-efficient, economical, and acceptable approach for the diagnostic phase of psychotherapy. The indications of diminished acceptability among multimorbid and severely disturbed patients warrant further study. Implications for quality assurance and practice research networks are discussed. / Wir wissen wenig darüber, wie Psychotherapiepatienten computergestützte Interviews für psychische Störungen erleben und bewerten. Trainierte Psychologen untersuchten 236 konsekutive Patienten einer Psychotherapieambulanz mit dem Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) in seiner computergestützen Version.. Danach beurteilten die befragten Patienten das Interview auf der Basis einer 15 Items umfassenden Liste hinsichtlich Inhalt, Verständlichkeit und Akzeptanz. 87% der Patienten bewerteten das Interview positiv, und gaben z.B. an froh zu sein, dass “die Befragung so genau und ausführlich war”. Größere Symptombelastung und höhere Komorbidität, nicht aber das Ausmaß an Depression, waren mit einer etwas schlechteren, absolut gesehen aber immer noch guten Bewertung des Interviews assoziiert. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass computergestützte Interviews, die bisher fast nur im Forschungsbereich eingesetzt wurden, eine zeit- und kosteneffiziente sowie für den Patienten akzeptable Möglichkeit für die Eingangsdiagnostik psychotherapeutischer Behandlungen darstellen. Die Hinweise auf eine geringere Akzeptanz bei multi-morbiden und stärker beeinträchtigten Patienten sollten weiter untersucht werden. Implikationen für die Qualitätssicherung und Praxisforschungsnetzwerke werden diskutiert.

Despite a wealth of studies on differences regarding the biobehavioral and social–psychological bases of mental disorders in men and women and repeated calls for increased attention, women-specific issues have so far not been comprehensively addressed in past diagnostic classification systems of mental disorders. There is also increasing evidence that this situation will not change significantly in the upcoming revisions of ICD-11 and DSM-V. This paper explores reasons for this continued failure, highlighting three major barriers: the fragmentation of the field of women's mental health research, lack of emphasis on diagnostic classificatory issues beyond a few selected clinical conditions, and finally, the “current rules of game” used by the current DSM-V Task Forces in the revision process of DSM-V. The paper calls for concerted efforts of researchers, clinicians, and other stakeholders within a more coherent and comprehensive framework aiming at broader coverage of women-specific diagnostic classificatory issues in future diagnostic systems.