Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 411

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Epidemiology: Reflections on Testing the Validity of Psychiatric Interviews

Robins, Lee N.·1985·Archives of General Psychiatry
DOI 10.1001/archpsyc.1985.01790320090013
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Laboratory tests that validate psychiatric disorder are unavailable. Accordingly, the validity of structured diagnostic interviews such as the Diagnostic Interview Schedule have been assessed through a double-blind test-retest design. This approach compares the Diagnostic Interview Schedule to a clinician's assessment and evaluates its results by three statistics: sensitivity and specificity, for which the clinician's interview serves as the standard, and K, which measures concordance between the two interviews. This design is found wanting on several counts: the reinterview may be answered differently because of clinical change or because of its meaning to the respondent; the clinician's interview may be an erratic standard; and the statistics are affected by both prevalence and severity of disorder. Furthermore, the statistics may not predict the accuracy of prevalence estimates made by the interview or its ability to detect correlates of disorder. Some alternative approaches are suggested.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archpsyc.1985.01790320090013

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Robins, L. N.
Venue
Archives of General Psychiatry
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
1985-09-01
Volume
42
Issue
9
Pages
918
ISSN
0003-990X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/archpsyc.1985.01790320090013
OpenAlex
W2074675218
Cited by
411
References
1
FWCI
37.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.