The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Validity of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) psychosis module in a psychiatric setting
Abstract
This study aimed to test the procedural validity of the psychosis module of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) by comparing it with diagnostic checklists completed by experienced clinicians. Seventy-five subjects were interviewed using the interviewer-administered version of the CIDI. Their clinician(s) then completed diagnostic checklists for DSMIV and ICD10 diagnoses of schizophrenia. Agreement was measured at the diagnostic, criterion and subcriterion levels. The validity standard (diagnostic checklist) was shown to be reliable with interrater agreement between the clinicians for the diagnosis of schizophrenia being excellent (kappa = 0.82 for DSMIV and kappa = 0.71 for ICD10). The agreement between the CIDI and the clinician checklists varied with sensitivities for DSMIV subcriteria ranging from 0.18 (negative symptoms) to 0.93 (bizarre delusions) and specificities ranging from 0.38 (catatonia) to 0.95 (disorganised speech). A similar pattern was found for ICD10 subcriteria: sensitivity varied from 0.19 (neologisms) to 0.90 (persistent delusions) and specificity varied from 0.39 (catatonia) to 0.95 (negative symptoms). The poorest levels of agreement were found for symptoms requiring interviewer judgement. The CIDI showed good agreement with clinician checklist diagnoses when the criteria were based on questions asked of the subjects. When the interviewer was required to make judgement of behaviours, the agreement between the CIDI and the clinician checklists was lower, resulting in overall poor agreement between the CIDI and the clinician checklists. Suggestions for improving the validity of the psychosis module of the CIDI are made.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Participants were screened for psychosis with a psychologist using the CIDI psychosis module20.”
From An experimental study of a virtual reality counselling paradigm using embodied self-dialogue (2019) · cites this paper as [20]
Citations
Cites
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Williams, J. B. W., & First, M. B. (2013) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.104 · Cited by 109,845
A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales
Cohen, J. (1960) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/001316446002000104 · Cited by 42,398
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646
Wittchen, H.-U. (1994) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/0022-3956(94)90036-1 · Cited by 2,348
Toutenburg, H. (1974) · Biometrische Zeitschrift · doi:10.1002/bimj.19740160814 · Cited by 1,547
Misinterpretation and misuse of the kappa statistic
MACLURE, M., & WILLETT, W. C. (1987) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/126.2.161 · Cited by 808
Psychiatric diagnosis: Are clinicians still necessary?
Spitzer, R. L. (1983) · Comprehensive Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/0010-440x(83)90032-9 · Cited by 693
A Comparison of Clinical and Diagnostic Interview Schedule Diagnoses
Helzer, J. E. (1985) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1985.01790300019003 · Cited by 621
Clinical Observation of Assessment Using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI)
Janča, A., Robins, L. N., Cottler, L. B., & Early, T. S. (1992) · The British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.160.6.815 · Cited by 174
The Spanish Diagnostic Interview Schedule
Burnam, M. A. (1983) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1983.01790100035005 · Cited by 130
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–101 of 101
Describing Psychotic Experiences Through Online Psychosis Screens: A Content Analysis
Oh, H. Y., Parekh, T., Sweeney, C., & Karcher, N. R. (2026) · International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1002/mpr.70092
Metadata
- Authors
- Cooper, L., Peters, L., & Andrews, G.
- Affiliations
- St Vincent's Hospital Sydney (AU)
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Andrews, Gavin
- Venue
- Journal of Psychiatric Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1998-09-01
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 361-368
- ISSN
- 0022-3956 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2019304126
- Cited by
- 101
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 1.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Psychiatric Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of New South Wales
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Keywords
- Composite International Diagnostic Interview, schizophrenia diagnosis, procedural validity, interobserver agreement, DSM-IV, ICD-10, sensitivity and specificity, negative symptoms, delusions, catatonia, neologisms
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Female, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Judgment, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Psychotic Disorders, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation
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