Cited by 522Mental Health Research TopicsSurvey Methodology and NonresponsePsychological Testing and Assessment

Comparability of telephone and face-to-face interviews in assessing axis I and II disorders

Rohde, Paul, Lewinsohn, Peter M., Seeley, John R.·1997·American Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The present study examined the comparability of data obtained by telephone and face-to-face interviews for diagnosing axis I and II disorders. METHOD: Sixty young adults from the community were interviewed face-to-face and over the telephone regarding axis I disorders; another 60 subjects were interviewed twice regarding axis II disorders. The order of interviews was counterbalanced, and subjects with a history of disorder were oversampled. Agreement between telephone and face-to-face interviews was contrasted with interrater values, which were obtained by having a second interviewer rate a recording of the original interview. RESULTS: Interrater reliability was excellent. Agreement between telephone and face-to-face assessment was excellent for anxiety disorders and very good for major depressive disorder and alcohol and substance use disorders; agreement was problematic, however, for adjustment disorder with depressed mood. Strong support was shown for the validity of the axis II telephone assessment format. Small but consistent trends were noted for lower rates of psychopathology reported in the second interview. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study in which telephone and face-to-face assessments of axis I and II psychopathology were conducted with the same subjects assigned to conditions in a counterbalanced manner. The present findings provide qualified justification for the use of telephone interviews to collect axis I and II data. The apparent concerns do not appear sufficient to override the economic and logistic advantages of telephone interviewing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1176/ajp.154.11.1593

Cites

32 of 32 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
Rohde, P., Lewinsohn, P. M., & Seeley, J. R.
Affiliations
Oregon Research Institute (US)
Venue
American Journal of Psychiatry
Published
1997-11-01
Volume
154
Issue
11
Pages
1593-1598
ISSN
  • 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-7228
OpenAlex
W2111308720
Cited by
522
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 25
FWCI
17.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH 50522, R01MH050522)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
telephone interviews, face-to-face interviews, Axis I disorders, Axis II personality disorders, diagnostic agreement, inter-rater reliability, anxiety disorders, major depressive disorder, substance use disorders, adjustment disorder with depressed mood, young adults
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Mental Disorders, Female, Humans, Male, Terminology as Topic, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Telephone, Reproducibility of Results, Prevalence, Remote Consultation

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