Cited by 668Reliability and Agreement in MeasurementAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

Test-retest reliability of the computerized DSM-IV version of the Munich-Composite International Diagnostic Interview (M-CIDI)

Wittchen, H.-U., Lachner, G., Wunderlich, U., Pfister, H.·1998·Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology

Abstract

The structure and content of the Munich-Composite International Diagnostic Interview (M-CIDI) for the assessment of DSM-IV symptoms, syndromes, and diagnoses is described along with findings from a test-retest reliability study. A sample of 60 community respondents were interviewed twice independently by trained interviewers with an average time interval of 38 days between investigations. Test-retest reliability was good for almost all specific DSM-IV core symptom questions and disorders examined, with kappa values ranging from fair for two diagnoses--bulimia (kappa 0.55) and generalized anxiety disorder (kappa 0.45)--to excellent (kappa above 0.72) for all other anxiety disorders and alcohol use disorders. Test-retest reliability for age of onset and time-related questions was fairly consistently high (intra-class correlation values of 0.79 or above), with one notable exception: the assessment of disorders with onset before puberty. We concluded that the M-CIDI is acceptable for respondents, efficient in terms of time needed for and ease of administration, and reliable in terms of consistency of findings over time periods of at least 1 month.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s001270050095

Cites

3 of 3 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
Wittchen, H.-U., Lachner, G., Wunderlich, U., & Pfister, H.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry (DE)
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
Venue
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
Published
1998-10-01
Volume
33
Issue
11
Pages
568-578
ISSN
  • 0933-7954 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-9285
OpenAlex
W2011927445
Cited by
668
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 32
FWCI
26.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
test-retest reliability, DSM-IV diagnosis, psychiatric symptom assessment, anxiety disorders, alcoholism, bulimia nervosa, generalized anxiety disorder
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Mental Disorders, Bipolar Disorder, Depressive Disorder, Diagnosis, Differential, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Predictive Value of Tests, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Sampling Studies, Somatoform Disorders, Statistics as Topic, Reproducibility of Results

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