Cited by 201Reliability and Agreement in MeasurementMental Health and PsychiatryMental Health Research Topics

DSM-5 field trials in the United States and Canada, part I: study design, sampling strategy, implementation, and analytic approaches

Clarke, Diana E., Narrow, William E., Regier, Darrel A., Kuramoto, S. Janet, Kupfer, David J., Kuhl, Emily A., Greiner, Lisa, Kraemer, Helena C.·2013·American Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This article discusses the design,sampling strategy, implementation,and data analytic processes of the DSM-5 Field Trials. METHOD: The DSM-5 Field Trials were conducted by using a test-retest reliability design with a stratified sampling approach across six adult and four pediatric sites in the United States and one adult site in Canada. A stratified random sampling approach was used to enhance precision in the estimation of the reliability coefficients. A web-based research electronic data capture system was used for simultaneous data collection from patients and clinicians across sites and for centralized data management.Weighted descriptive analyses, intraclass kappa and intraclass correlation coefficients for stratified samples, and receiver operating curves were computed. The DSM-5 Field Trials capitalized on advances since DSM-III and DSM-IV in statistical measures of reliability (i.e., intraclass kappa for stratified samples) and other recently developed measures to determine confidence intervals around kappa estimates. RESULTS: Diagnostic interviews using DSM-5 criteria were conducted by 279 clinicians of varied disciplines who received training comparable to what would be available to any clinician after publication of DSM-5.Overall, 2,246 patients with various diagnoses and levels of comorbidity were enrolled,of which over 86% were seen for two diagnostic interviews. A range of reliability coefficients were observed for the categorical diagnoses and dimensional measures. CONCLUSIONS: Multisite field trials and training comparable to what would be available to any clinician after publication of DSM-5 provided “real-world” testing of DSM-5 proposed diagnoses.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12070998

Cites

21 of 21 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
Clarke, D. E., Narrow, W. E., Regier, D. A., Kuramoto, S. J., Kupfer, D. J., Kuhl, E. A., Greiner, L., & Kraemer, H. C.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Venue
American Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2013-01
Volume
170
Issue
1
Pages
43-58
ISSN
  • 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-7228
OpenAlex
W2103393020
Cited by
201
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 21
FWCI
26.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
DSM-5, field trials, diagnostic reliability, test-retest reliability, stratified sampling, intraclass correlation coefficient, diagnostic interview, clinician training, psychiatric diagnosis, multi-site study
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Canada, Child, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Humans, Psychometrics, Research Design, Sampling Studies, Statistics as Topic, United States, Multicenter Studies as Topic, Selection Bias, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

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