Cited by 1,124Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyReliability and Agreement in MeasurementPsychological Testing and Assessment

Inter‐rater reliability of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM‐IV Axis I Disorders (SCID I) and Axis II Disorders (SCID II)

Lobbestael, Jill, Leurgans, Maartje, Arntz, Arnoud·2011·Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy

Abstract

This study simultaneously assessed the inter‐rater reliability of the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Axis I (SCID I) and Axis II disorders (SCID II) in a mixed sample of n = 151 inpatients and outpatients, and non‐patient controls. Audiotaped interviews were assessed by independent second raters blind for the first raters' scores and diagnoses. Categorical inter‐rater reliability was assessed for 12 Axis I disorders of SCID I, while both categorical and dimensional inter‐rater reliability was tested for all Axis II disorders. Results revealed moderate to excellent inter‐rater agreement of the Axis I disorders, while most categorically and dimensionally measured personality disorders showed excellent inter‐rater agreement. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Key Practitioner Message: • Elaborate training in administration of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM disorders (SCID) is a crucial ingredient for valid use of the SCID. • The more dimensionally the SCID II pathology is indexed, the higher inter‐rater reliability. • Structural assessment of Axis I and Axis II pathology by means of SCID I and II is an essential ingredient for valid and reliable pathology assessment in clinical practice and in research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cpp.693

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lobbestael, J., Leurgans, M., & Arntz, A.
Affiliations
Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Lobbestael, Jill
Venue
Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-01
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
75-79
ISSN
  • 1063-3995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0879
OpenAlex
W2139725402
Cited by
1,124
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 116 · 2020: 83 · 2019: 107 · 2018: 86 · 2017: 88 · 2016: 102 · 2015: 82 · 2014: 83 · 2013: 76 · 2012: 47
FWCI
50.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
SCID-II, inter-rater reliability, personality disorders, Axis I disorders, Axis II personality disorders, dimensional assessment, psychiatric diagnosis
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Mental Disorders, Female, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Young Adult

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