Brugha and his colleagues in this issue raise important questions about the validity of standardized diagnostic interviews of mental disorders, such as the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) (WHO, 1990). Although their concerns refer predominantly to the use of such instruments in epidemiological research, the authors' conclusions also have significant implications for diagnostic assessments in clinical practice and research. We agree with Brugha et al. that the inflexible approach to questioning used in standardized interviews can lead to an increased risk of invalidity with regard to some diagnoses. We also agree that the use of more semi-structured clinical questions has the potential to address this problem. However, we disagree with Brugha et al. in several other respects.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:DRESDEN/oai:qucosa:de:qucosa:25409 |
| Date | January 1999 |
| Creators | Wittchen, Hans-Ulrich, Üstün, T. Bedirhan, Kessler, Ronald C. |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| Source Sets | Hochschulschriftenserver (HSSS) der SLUB Dresden |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | doc-type:article, info:eu-repo/semantics/article, doc-type:Text |
| Source | Psychological Medicine, Bd. 29 (1999), Nr. 5, 1021-1027, ISSN: 0033-2917 |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| Relation | 0033-2917 |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds