两种结构化诊断访谈的比较：复合性国际诊断交谈检查表（CIDI）和神经精神病学临床评定表（SCAN）。

A comparison of two structured diagnostic interviews: CIDI and SCAN.

作者信息

Andrews G, Peters L, Guzman A M, Bird K

机构信息

Clinical Research Unit for Anxiety Disorders, University of New South Wales at St. Vincent's Hospital, Darlinghurst.

出版信息

Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1995 Mar;29(1):124-32. doi: 10.3109/00048679509075901.

DOI:10.3109/00048679509075901

PMID:7625961

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 judgment involved in administering the SCAN resulted in the more moderate levels of agreement between the interviewer and observer than those found for the CIDI.

摘要

探讨了《复合国际诊断访谈》（CIDI）与《神经精神病学临床评估量表》（SCAN）在焦虑症和抑郁症方面的评分者间信度及其相互关系。CIDI和SCAN由经过培训的访谈员以平衡顺序进行施测。观察了一部分访谈样本以确定这些工具的评分者间信度。研究对象为101名在焦虑症诊所接受治疗的患者；其中29名患者参与了评分者间信度研究。通过典型相关分析测量，两种工具在当前诊断（r = 0.69，p = 0.05）和终生诊断（r = 0.66，p = 0.05）方面的一致性为中等。CIDI的评分者间信度极佳（总体组内kappa系数 = 1.00），SCAN的评分者间信度良好（总体组内kappa系数 = 0.67）。研究得出结论，尽管两种工具做出的诊断区分相似，但施测SCAN时涉及的临床判断导致访谈员与观察者之间的一致性水平比CIDI的情况更为中等。