CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 162Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and Access

Clinical reappraisal of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Screening Scales (CIDI‐SC) in the Army Study to Assess Risk and Resilience in Servicemembers (Army STARRS)

Open access
Kessler, Ronald C., Santiago, Patcho N., Colpe, Lisa J., Dempsey, Catherine L., First, Michael B., Heeringa, Steven G., Stein, Murray B., Fullerton, Carol S. +7 more·2013·International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research
DOI 10.1002/mpr.1398PMC PMC4027964
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A clinical reappraisal study was carried out in conjunction with the Army Study to Assess Risk and Resilience in Servicemembers (Army STARRS) All-Army Study (AAS) to evaluate concordance of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) diagnoses based on the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Screening Scales (CIDI-SC) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) checklist (PCL) with diagnoses based on independent clinical reappraisal interviews (Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV [SCID]). Diagnoses included: lifetime mania/hypomania, panic disorder, and intermittent explosive disorder; six-month adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; and 30-day major depressive episode, generalized anxiety disorder, PTSD, and substance (alcohol or drug) use disorder (abuse or dependence). The sample (n = 460) was weighted for over-sampling CIDI-SC/PCL screened positives. Diagnostic thresholds were set to equalize false positives and false negatives. Good individual-level concordance was found between CIDI-SC/PCL and SCID diagnoses at these thresholds (area under curve [AUC] = 0.69-0.79). AUC was considerably higher for continuous than dichotomous screening scale scores (AUC = 0.80-0.90), arguing for substantive analyses using not only dichotomous case designations but also continuous measures of predicted probabilities of clinical diagnoses.

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 · 10.1002/mpr.1398

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • The CIDI-SC scales conform to blinded clinical diagnoses based on SCID-IV in the AUC range of .70-.78.

    “The CIDI-SC scales conform to blinded clinical diagnoses based on the Structured Clinical Interview for DMS-IV [SCID-IV (42);] in the area under the curve (AUC) range of .70–.78 (40, 41).”

    From Mental health services for German university students: acceptance of intervention targets and preference for delivery modes (2024) · cites this paper as [40]

    The Results section reports moderate CIDI-SC/SCID concordance for seven diagnoses (AUC .70–.79) and fair concordance for ADHD (AUC .69), rather than an overall range of .70–.78. The Methods section says clinical interviewers were unblinded to respondents’ answers to diagnostic stem questions, although they remained blinded to whether respondents met full CIDI-SC diagnostic criteria. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The CIDI-SC scales conform to blinded clinical diagnoses based on SCID-IV in the AUC range of .70-.78.

    “The CIDI-SC scales conform to blinded clinical diagnoses based on the Structured Clinical Interview for DMS-IV [SCID-IV (42);] in the area under the curve (AUC) range of .70–.78 (40, 41).”

    From Mental health services for German university students: acceptance of intervention targets and preference for delivery modes (2024) · cites this paper as [41]

    The Results section reports concordance with SCID diagnoses, but gives AUCs of .70–.79 for seven diagnoses and .69 for ADHD, not an overall range of .70–.78. The Methods section also says clinical interviewers were told whether respondents had endorsed CIDI-SC diagnostic stem questions, so the interviews were not fully blinded. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The survey uses well-validated screening scales, with good concordance with blinded clinical diagnoses (AUC = 0.70-0.78 for mental disorders and 0.78-0.91 for alcohol use disorder).

    “While the survey uses well-validated screening scales, with good concordance with blinded clinical diagnoses (in the range AUC = 0.70-0.78 for mental disorders(Kessler et al., 2013) and 0.78-0.91 for alcohol use disorder (Reinert & Allen, 2002)”

    From Severe role impairment associated with mental disorders: Results of the WHO World Mental Health Surveys International College Student Project (2018) · cites this paper as Kessler et al., 2013

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. First MB Spitzer RL Gibbon M Williams JBW Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders, Research Version, Non-patient Edition (SCID-I/NP) 2002 New York, NY Biometrics Research, New York State Psychiatric Institute
  2. Guyatt G Rennie D User's Guide to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-based Clinical Practice 2001 Chicago, IL AMA Press
  3. Kessler RC Pennell B-E Johnson TP Developing and selecting mental health measures Handbook of Health Survey Methods New York, NY John Wiley & Sons (in press)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kessler, R. C., Santiago, P. N., Colpe, L. J., Dempsey, C. L., First, M. B., Heeringa, S. G., Stein, M. B., Fullerton, C. S., Gruber, M. J., Naifeh, J. A., Nock, M. K., Sampson, N. A., Schoenbaum, M., Zaslavsky, A. M., & Ursano, R. J.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (US)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (US)
  • New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-12
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
303-321
ISSN
  • 1049-8931 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-0657
DOI
10.1002/mpr.1398
PMC
PMC4027964
OpenAlex
W1812467058
Cited by
162
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2
FWCI
5.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 8 d)
Locations
  • International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (U01MH087981)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
diagnostic agreement, Army STARRS, PTSD Checklist, severe combined immunodeficiency, mental health screening, DSM-IV diagnosis, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance use disorders, major depressive episode, generalized anxiety disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, panic disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, military personnel
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Military Personnel, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Retrospective Studies, ROC Curve, Chi-Square Distribution, Risk Assessment, Area Under Curve, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Resilience, Psychological

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