Major depressive episode among young adults:: CIDI-SF versus SCAN consensus diagnoses

被引:67
作者
Aalto-Setälä, T
Haarasilta, L
Marttunen, M
Tuulio-Henriksson, A
Poikolainen, K
Aro, H
Lönnqvist, J
机构
[1] Natl Publ Hlth Inst, Dept Mental Hlth & Alcohol Res, Mannerheimintie, Finland
[2] Peijas Hosp, Dept Adolescent Psychiat, Vantaa, Finland
[3] Finnish Fdn Alcohol Studies, Helsinki, Finland
关键词
D O I
10.1017/S0033291702005810
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
Background. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a highly structured diagnostic interview in relation to a semi-structured diagnostic procedure. We compared the World Health Organization Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short Form (CIDI-SF) in diagnosing major depressive episode (MDE) to consensus diagnoses based on the SCAN interview (Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry). Method. Subjects comprised a follow-up sample of 239 20-24-year-old former high-school students who were administered the SCAN and immediately thereafter the CIDI-SF. Concordance was estimated for 12-month MDE, using different cut-points of the CIDI-SF and for any affective disorders. Results. Correspondence between instruments was moderate for MDE (kappa = 0.43, sensitivity 0.71, specificity 0.82), but better for any affective disorder (kappa = 0.60, sensitivity 0.70, specificity 0.90). Most false negatives suffered from their depression as much as those correctly identified by the CIDI-SF. False negativity was mainly due to not endorsing the stem questions of the CIDI-SF. Of the false positives almost half had an affective disorder other than MDE. Conclusions. The CIDI-SF seems to function best in identifying a broader category of affective disorders. It could be useful in large-scale community surveys where more extensive psychiatric interviews are not feasible.
引用
收藏
页码:1309 / 1314
页数:6
相关论文
共 19 条
[11]  
Kessler RC., 1998, International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, V7, P171, DOI [DOI 10.1002/MPR.47, 10.1002/mpr.47]
[12]   SOURCES OF DISCREPANCY IN THE COMPARISON OF A LAY-ADMINISTERED DIAGNOSTIC INSTRUMENT WITH CLINICAL-DIAGNOSIS [J].
MCLEOD, JD ;
TURNBULL, JE ;
KESSLER, RC ;
ABELSON, JM .
PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH, 1990, 31 (02) :145-159
[13]   Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [J].
Mittal, Vijay A. ;
Walker, Elaine F. .
PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH, 2011, 189 (01) :158-159
[14]  
Patten S B, 1997, Chronic Dis Can, V18, P109
[15]   Limitations of diagnostic criteria and assessment instruments for mental disorders -: Implications for research and policy [J].
Regier, DA ;
Kaelber, CT ;
Rae, DS ;
Farmer, ME ;
Knauper, B ;
Kessler, RC ;
Norquist, GS .
ARCHIVES OF GENERAL PSYCHIATRY, 1998, 55 (02) :109-115
[16]  
ROBINS LN, 1981, ARCH GEN PSYCHIAT, V38, P381
[17]   Diagnosing mental disorders in the community.: A difference that matters? [J].
Wittchen, HU ;
Üstün, TB ;
Kessler, RC .
PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE, 1999, 29 (05) :1021-1027
[18]  
World Health Organisation (WHO, 1994, SCHED CLIN ASS NEUR
[19]  
World Health Organization, 1990, Composite international diagnostic interview (CIDI). Version 1.0.