CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 101Schizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health and PsychiatryPsychological Testing and Assessment

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

Cooper, Lucy, Peters, Lorna, Andrews, Gavin·1998·Journal of Psychiatric Research
DOI 10.1016/s0022-3956(98)00021-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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

Crossref · 10.1016/s0022-3956(98)00021-1

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 101

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Cooper, L., Peters, L., & Andrews, G.
Affiliations
  • St Vincent's Hospital Sydney (AU)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Andrews, Gavin
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Psychiatric Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1998-09-01
Volume
32
Issue
6
Pages
361-368
ISSN
0022-3956 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s0022-3956(98)00021-1
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
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
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