Psychometric Properties of a Structured Diagnostic Interview for DSM-5 Anxiety, Mood, and Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders
Abstract
Three hundred sixty-two adult patients were administered the Diagnostic Interview for Anxiety, Mood, and OCD and Related Neuropsychiatric Disorders (DIAMOND). Of these, 121 provided interrater reliability data, and 115 provided test–retest reliability data. Participants also completed a battery of self-report measures that assess symptoms of anxiety, mood, and obsessive-compulsive and related disorders. Interrater reliability of DIAMOND anxiety, mood, and obsessive-compulsive and related diagnoses ranged from very good to excellent. Test–retest reliability of DIAMOND diagnoses ranged from good to excellent. Convergent validity was established by significant between-group comparisons on applicable self-report measures for nearly all diagnoses. The results of the present study indicate that the DIAMOND is a promising semistructured diagnostic interview for DSM-5 disorders.
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?
The DIAMOND demonstrates very good interrater reliability (kappa = .71) and test-retest validity (kappa = .68) for the generalized anxiety disorder diagnosis.
“The DIAMOND demonstrates very good interrater reliability (kappa = .71) and test-retest validity (kappa = .68) for the GAD diagnosis [49].”
From Internet videoconferencing delivered cognitive behavior therapy for generalized anxiety disorder: protocol for a randomized controlled trial (2022) · cites this paper as [49]
Diagnostic assessments were conducted by graduate student assessors masked to participants' randomization conditions.
“Two graduate student assessors certified in the Diagnostic Interview for DSM-5 Anxiety, Mood, Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders (Tolin et al., 2018) and masked to participants' randomization conditions conducted all diagnostic assessments.”
From Within-person changes in aversive reactivity predict session-to-session reductions in anxiety and depression in the unified protocol. (2024) · cites this paper as Tolin et al., 2018
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 39 · Cited by 345
- Authors
- Tolin, D. F., Gilliam, C., Wootton, B. M., Bowe, W., Bragdon, L. B., Davis, E., Hannan, S. E., Steinman, S. A., Worden, B., & Hallion, L. S.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- The Institute of Living, Hartford, CT, USA
- University of Tasmania (AU)
- Binghamton University (US)
- Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Tolin, David F.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Assessment
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-03-17
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-13
- ISSN
- 1073-1911 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3489
- OpenAlex
- W2308253549
- Cited by
- 345
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 61 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 18.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Assessment (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion)
- RUNE (Research UNE) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
- Keywords
- diamond, structured diagnostic interview, DSM-5, anxiety disorders, mood disorders, obsessive-compulsive and related disorders, inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, semi-structured interviews, neuropsychiatric disorders
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Female, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results, Mood Disorders, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Self Report
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
