Cited by 490Mental Health Treatment and AccessMental Health Research TopicsReliability and Agreement in Measurement

Clinical calibration of DSM‐IV diagnoses in the World Mental Health (WMH) version of the World Health Organization (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (WMH‐CIDI)

Open access
Kessler, Ronald C., Abelson, Jamie, Demler, Olga, Escobar, Javier I., Gibbon, Miriam, Guyer, Margaret E., Howes, Mary J., Jin, Robert +5 more·2004·International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research

Abstract

An overview is presented of the rationale, design, and analysis plan for the WMH‐CIDI clinical calibration studies. As no clinical gold standard assessment is available for the DSM‐IV disorders assessed in the WMH‐CIDI, we adopted the goal of calibration rather than validation; that is, we asked whether WMH‐CIDI diagnoses are ‘consistent’ with diagnoses based on a state‐of‐the‐art clinical research diagnostic interview (SCID; Structured Clinical Interview for DSM‐IV) rather than whether they are ‘correct’. Consistency is evaluated both at the aggregate level (consistency of WMH‐CIDI and SCID prevalence estimates) and at the individual level (consistency of WMH‐CIDI and SCID diagnostic classifications). Although conventional statistics (sensitivity, specificity, Cohen's κ) are used to describe diagnostic consistency, an argument is made for considering the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) to be a more useful general‐purpose measure of consistency. In addition, more detailed analyses are used to evaluate consistency on a substantive level. These analyses begin by estimating prediction equations in a clinical calibration subsample, with WMH‐CIDI symptom‐level data used to predict SCID diagnoses, and using the coefficients from these equations to assign predicted probabilities of SCID diagnoses to each respondent in the remainder of the sample. Substantive analyses then investigate whether estimates of prevalence and associations when based on WMH‐CIDI diagnoses are consistent with those based on predicted SCID diagnoses. Multiple imputation is used to adjust estimated standard errors for the imprecision introduced by SCID diagnoses being imputed under a model rather than measured directly. A brief illustration of this approach is presented in comparing the precision of SCID and predicted SCID estimates of prevalence and correlates under varying sample designs. Copyright © 2004 Whurr Publishers Ltd.

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.169

Cites

59 of 59 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?

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: 2

  1. Kish L, Frankel MR. Inferences from complex samples. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 1974; 36 (Series B): 1-37.
  2. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Final notice establishing definitions for (1) children with a serious emotional disturbance, and (2) adults with a serious mental illness. Fed Regist 1993; 58: 29422-5.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kessler, R. C., Abelson, J., Demler, O., Escobar, J. I., Gibbon, M., Guyer, M. E., Howes, M. J., Jin, R., Vega, W. A., Walters, E. E., Wang, P., Zaslavsky, A., & Zheng, H.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (US)
  • New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Kessler, Ronald C.
Venue
International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-06
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
122-139
ISSN
  • 1049-8931 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-0657
OpenAlex
W2023603356
Cited by
489
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 24
FWCI
22.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (044708)
  • Harvard University
  • Michigan State University
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
  • College of Engineering, Michigan State University
  • National Institute of Mental Health (U01-MH-60220, MH60220, U01MH060220)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
DSM-IV diagnosis, diagnostic consistency, severe combined immunodeficiency, structured clinical interview, prevalence estimates, receiver operating characteristic, prediction equations, multiple imputation, psychiatric diagnosis, World Mental Health Surveys
MeSH terms
Adult, Mental Disorders, Cross-Sectional Studies, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Female, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Male, Sampling Studies, Global Health, World Health Organization, Reproducibility of Results, Epidemiologic Research Design, Comorbidity, Bias, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

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