Cited by 349Reliability and Agreement in MeasurementPsychological Testing and AssessmentMental Health and Psychiatry

Clinical validity and intrarater and test–retest reliability of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM‐5 – Clinician Version (SCID‐5‐CV)

Open access
Osório, Flávia L., Loureiro, Sonia Regina, Hallak, Jaime Eduardo C., Machado‐de‐Sousa, João Paulo, Ushirohira, Juliana M., Baes, Cristiane V. W., Apolinario, Thiago D., Donadon, Mariana F. +10 more·2019·Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences

Abstract

AIM: The Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM is one of the most used diagnostic instruments in clinical research worldwide. The current Clinician Version of the instrument (SCID-5-CV) has not yet been assessed in respect to its psychometric qualities. We aimed to assess the clinical validity and different reliability indicators (interrater test-retest, joint interview, face-to-face vs telephone application) of the SCID-5-CV in a large sample of 180 non-prototypical and psychiatric patients based on interviews conducted by raters with different levels of clinical experience. METHODS: The SCID-5-CV was administered face-to-face and by telephone by 12 psychiatrists/psychologists who took turns as raters and observers. Clinical diagnoses were established according to DSM-5 criteria and the longitudinal, expert, all data (LEAD) procedure. We calculated the percentage of agreement, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, and the level of agreement (kappa) for diagnostic categories and specific diagnoses. RESULTS: The percentage of positive agreement between the interview and clinical diagnoses ranged between 73% and 97% and the diagnostic sensitivity/specificity were >0.70. In the joint interview, the levels of positive agreement were high (>75%) and kappa levels were >0.70 for most diagnoses. The values were less expressive, but still adequate, for interrater test-retest interviews. CONCLUSION: The SCID-5-CV presented excellent reliability and high specificity as assessed with different methods. The clinical validity of the instrument was also confirmed, which supports its use in daily clinical practice. We highlight the adequacy of the instrument to be used via telephone and the need for careful use by professionals with little experience in psychiatric clinical practice.

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 · 10.1111/pcn.12931

Cites

26 of 26 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

1 of the 27 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Del-Ben CM, Vilela JAA, Crippa JAS, Hallak JEC, Labate CM, Zuardi AW. Reliability of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV: Clinical version translated into Portuguese. Rev. Bras. Psiquiatr. 2001; 23: 156-159.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Osório, F. L., Loureiro, S. R., Hallak, J. E. C., Machado‐de‐Sousa, J. P., Ushirohira, J. M., Baes, C. V. W., Apolinario, T. D., Donadon, M. F., Bolsoni, L. M., Guimarães, T., Fracon, V. S., Silva‐Rodrigues, A. P. C., Pizeta, F. A., Souza, R. M., Sanches, R. F., dos Santos, R. G., Martin‐Santos, R., & Crippa, J. A. S.
Affiliations
  • Medical School of Ribeirão Preto São Paulo University Ribeirão Preto Brazil
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (BR)
  • Clinics Hospital of Ribeirão Preto (BR)
  • National Institute For Science and Technology (INCT‐TM, CNPq) Brasília Brazil
Venue
Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-10-14
Volume
73
Issue
12
Pages
754-760
ISSN
  • 1323-1316 (ISSN-L)
  • 1440-1819
OpenAlex
W2971897729
Cited by
348
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 11
FWCI
19.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (465458/2014‐9, Process 301321/2016‐7)
  • Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (2014/50891‐1, Process no. 17/18000‐8)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
Keywords
clinical validity, inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability, telephone administration, sensitivity and specificity, psychiatric diagnosis, DSM-5 diagnostic criteria, rater experience
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Mental Disorders, Female, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Young Adult

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