A Comparison of Two Structured Diagnostic Interviews: CIDI and SCAN
Abstract
The relationship between and the inter-rater reliability of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) and the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN) for anxiety and depressive disorders were explored. The CIDI and the SCAN were administered by trained interviewers in counterbalanced order. A subsample of interviews was observed to determine the inter-rater reliability of the instruments. Subjects were 101 patients accepted for treatment at an Anxiety Disorders Clinic; 29 of the 101 patients participated in the inter-rater reliability study. Concordance between the instruments as measured by canonical correlation analysis was moderate for current (r=0.69, p=0.05) and for lifetime (r=0.66, p=0.05) diagnoses. Inter-rater reliability of the CIDI was perfect (overall intraclass kappa = 1.00), and of the SCAN was good (overall intraclass kappa = 0.67). It is concluded that although the two instruments made similar diagnostic distinctions, the clinical judgement involved in administering the SCAN resulted in the more moderate levels of agreement between the interviewer and observer than those found for the CIDI.
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 reliability results were similar to those achieved by diagnostic assessments using more complex and time-consuming structured instruments.
“The results were similar to those achieved by diagnostic assessments using more complex and time consuming structured instruments 26,39,40 .”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 16 · Cited by 108
- Authors
- Andrews, G., Peters, L., Guzman, A.-M., & Bird, K.
- Affiliations
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- Venue
- Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1995-03
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 124-132
- ISSN
- 0004-8674 (ISSN-L)
- 1440-1614
- OpenAlex
- W1999726965
- Cited by
- 108
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 7.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
- Keywords
- Composite International Diagnostic Interview, structured diagnostic interview, inter-rater reliability, anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, diagnostic agreement, clinical judgment, psychiatric diagnosis
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Agoraphobia, Ambulatory Care, Anxiety Disorders, Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Male, Middle Aged, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Personality Assessment, Phobic Disorders, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation
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