The survey form of SCAN: the feasibility of using experienced lay survey interviewers to administer a semi-structured systematic clinical assessment of psychotic and non-psychotic disorders
Open accessAbstract
Background. The success of large scale surveys depends on well designed questionnaires and the skills of lay interviewers. Discrepancies in prevalence rates between epidemiological surveys and poor agreement between survey interviewer and clinician diagnostic interviews are giving rise to increasing concern among researchers, public health planners and policy developers. New approaches to information collection are called for. The feasibility of training experienced survey interviewers in semi-structured, clinical, diagnostic interviewing has never been investigated systematically across the range of neurotic and psychotic disorders. Methods. Eight experienced survey interviewers from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) were selected and underwent extended training in a Survey Form of SCAN (SCAN-SF). Sixty-four adults, including a majority of psychiatric in-patients were assessed by ONS interviewers and re-interviewed within a week by SCAN-trained clinicians. Feedback was sought from interviewers and trainers. Results. Trainers found lay interviewers coped at least as well with psychotic as with neurotic symptoms. Concordance for any disorder was 0·74 (95% CI: 0·57 to 0·91); for any specific psychotic disorder 0·63 (0·40 to 0·86); for any specific neurotic disorder 0·63 (0·43 to 0·83). Sensitivity ranged from 0·6 to 0·9 and specificity from 0·8 to 0·9. There was no evidence of rater bias. Conclusions. These preliminary findings are very promising. However, before the SCAN-SF, administered by carefully trained lay interviewers, can be recommended in large scale surveys, further evaluations of its feasibility and reliability in the general population are needed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Evidence indicates high reliability between clinicians and lay interviewers; for major depressive disorder, kappa was 0.97 with 99.7% agreement.
“Results indicated high agreement between the two; for major depressive disorder, kappa = 0.97, with 99.7% agreement between the two sources (see also Brugha, Nienhuis, Bagchi, Smith, & Meltzer, 1999).”
From Gender Differences in Depression in Representative National Samples: Meta-Analyses of Diagnoses and Symptoms (2017) · cites this paper as Brugha, Nienhuis, Bagchi, Smith, & Meltzer, 1999
Cites
SCAN: Schedules fonr Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry
Wing, J. K. (1990) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1990.01810180089012 · Cited by 2,517 · see citing works
Kendler, K. S. (1996) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1996.01830110060007 · Cited by 676 · see citing works
The National Psychiatric Morbidity Surveys of Great Britain – strategy and methods
JENKINS, R., BEBBINGTON, P., BRUGHA, T., FARRELL, M., GILL, B., LEWIS, G., MELTZER, H., & PETTICREW, M. (1997) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s003329179700531x · Cited by 153 · cited 4× · see citing works
“In the general population, non-clinically trained interviewers have carried out structured interviews to identify psychotic disorders (Robins & Regier, 1991; Kendler et al. 1996) and psychotic symptoms (Jenkins et al. 1997a).”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Salk, R. H., Hyde, J. S., & Abramson, L. Y. (2017) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000102 · Cited by 2,622 · see citing works
Bebbington, P. E., Bhugra, D., Brugha, T., Singleton, N., Farrell, M., Jenkins, R., Lewis, G., & Meltzer, H. (2004) · British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.185.3.220 · Cited by 562 · see citing works
Self-citationBRUGHA, T. S., BEBBINGTON, P. E., & JENKINS, R. (1999) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291799008880 · Cited by 191 · see citing works
Self-citationBRUGHA, T. S., JENKINS, R., TAUB, N., MELTZER, H., & BEBBINGTON, P. E. (2001) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291701004184 · Cited by 171 · see citing works
Self-citationBullying victimisation and risk of psychotic phenomena: Analyses of british national survey data
Catone, G., Marwaha, S., Kuipers, E., Lennox, B., Freeman, D., Bebbington, P., & Broome, M. (2015) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(15)00055-3 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Jablensky, A. (2003) · Schizophrenia · doi:10.1002/9780470987353.ch12 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
- Authors
- BRUGHA, T. S., NIENHUIS, F., BAGCHI, D., SMITH, J., & MELTZER, H.
- Affiliations
- Office for National Statistics (GB)
- Venue
- Psychological Medicine
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1999-05
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 703-711
- ISSN
- 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8978
- OpenAlex
- W2038380837
- Cited by
- 41
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 14.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- figshare.com
- Licence
- Locations
- Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
- Keywords
- lay interviewers, psychiatric epidemiology, psychosis, neurosis, diagnostic agreement, interviewer training, sensitivity and specificity, rater bias, psychiatric inpatients
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Feasibility Studies, Health Personnel, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychotic Disorders, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sensitivity and Specificity, Teaching
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