Suppr超能文献

流行病学:关于检验精神科访谈有效性的思考

Epidemiology: reflections on testing the validity of psychiatric interviews.

作者信息

Robins L N

出版信息

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1985 Sep;42(9):918-24. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1985.01790320090013.

Abstract

Laboratory tests that validate psychiatric disorder are unavailable. Accordingly, the validity of structured diagnostic interviews such as the Diagnostic Interview Schedule have been assessed through a double-blind test-retest design. This approach compares the Diagnostic Interview Schedule to a clinician's assessment and evaluates its results by three statistics: sensitivity and specificity, for which the clinician's interview serves as the standard, and K, which measures concordance between the two interviews. This design is found wanting on several counts: the reinterview may be answered differently because of clinical change or because of its meaning to the respondent; the clinician's interview may be an erratic standard; and the statistics are affected by both prevalence and severity of disorder. Furthermore, the statistics may not predict the accuracy of prevalence estimates made by the interview or its ability to detect correlates of disorder. Some alternative approaches are suggested.

摘要

目前尚无能够验证精神疾病的实验室检测方法。因此,诸如诊断访谈表之类的结构化诊断访谈的有效性已通过双盲重测设计进行了评估。这种方法将诊断访谈表与临床医生的评估进行比较,并通过三种统计数据来评估其结果:敏感性和特异性(以临床医生的访谈作为标准),以及衡量两次访谈一致性的K值。这种设计在几个方面存在不足:由于临床变化或对受访者的意义,再次访谈的回答可能会有所不同;临床医生的访谈可能是一个不稳定的标准;而且这些统计数据会受到疾病患病率和严重程度的影响。此外,这些统计数据可能无法预测访谈对患病率估计的准确性或其检测疾病相关因素的能力。文中提出了一些替代方法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验