Telephone versus face-to-face administration of the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, for diagnosis of psychotic disorders.

Mental Health Research Centre, Tehran Psychiatric Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 15745-344, Iran.
Comprehensive psychiatry (Impact Factor: 2.08). 08/2011; 53(5):579-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2011.06.001
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The current study aims to compare telephone vs face-to-face administration of the version of Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, (SCID) for diagnosis of "any psychotic disorder" in a clinical population in Iran.
The sample consisted of 72 subjects from 2 psychiatric outpatient services in Tehran, Iran. The subjects were interviewed using face-to-face SCID for the purpose of diagnosing psychotic disorders. A second independent telephone SCID was administered to the entire sample within 5 to 10 days, and the lifetime and 12-month diagnoses were compared.
The positive likelihood ratio of telephone-administered SCID for diagnosis of "any lifetime psychotic disorder" was 5.1 when compared with the face-to-face SCID. The value for the primary psychotic disorders in the past 12 months was lower (2.3).
The data indicate that telephone administration of the SCID is an acceptable method to differentiate between subjects with lifetime psychotic disorders and those who have had no psychotic disorders and provides a less resource-demanding alternative to face-to-face assessments.

  • Schizophrenia Research 01/2014; · 4.59 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Internet-administered self-report measures of social anxiety, depressive symptoms, and sleep difficulties are widely used in clinical trials and in clinical routine care, but data loss is a common problem that could render skewed estimates of symptom levels and treatment effects. One way of reducing the negative impact of missing data could be to use telephone administration of self-report measures as a means to complete the data missing from the online data collection. The aim of the study was to compare the convergence of telephone and Internet administration of self-report measures of social anxiety, depressive symptoms, and sleep difficulties. The Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale-Self-Report (LSAS-SR), Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale-Self-Rated (MADRS-S), and the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) were administered over the telephone and via the Internet to a clinical sample (N=82) of psychiatric patients at a clinic specializing in Internet-delivered treatment. Shortened versions of the LSAS-SR and the ISI were used when administered via telephone. As predicted, the results showed that the estimates produced by the two administration formats were highly correlated (r=.82-.91; P<.001) and internal consistencies were high in both administration formats (telephone: Cronbach alpha=.76-.86 and Internet: Cronbach alpha=.79-.93). The correlation coefficients were similar across questionnaires and the shorter versions of the questionnaires used in the telephone administration of the LSAS-SR and ISI performed in general equally well compared to when the full scale was used, as was the case with the MADRS-S. Telephone administration of self-report questionnaires is a valid method that can be used to reduce data loss in routine psychiatric practice as well as in clinical trials, thereby contributing to more accurate symptom estimates.
    Journal of Medical Internet Research 01/2013; 15(10):e229. · 3.77 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: For reasons of feasibility, diagnostic telephone interviews are frequently used in research of psychiatric morbidity. However, it is unknown whether diagnostic telephone interviews are as valid as diagnostic face-to-face interviews. Are diagnostic telephone interviews for psychiatric disorders as valid as diagnostic face-to-face interviews? A systematic review of original studies in PubMed, PsychINFO and Embase was carried out. We included studies considering (1) the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic telephone interviews using face-to-face interviews as a golden standard and (2) the agreement between diagnostic telephone and diagnostic face-to-face interviews. Eligible were studies in the general population, in patients at risk for psychiatric disorders and in psychiatric outpatients. We assessed risk of bias with the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS) instrument. We included sixteen studies. The included studies were generally small with thirteen studies reporting about <100 participants. Specificity was generally high in populations with low or intermediate prevalence of psychiatric morbidity. Sensitivity was low in these populations, but slightly higher in samples with more psychiatric disorders. Studies with a higher risk of psychiatric disorders generally reported higher percentages of agreement and higher kappa values. Considering the QUADAS-2 criteria, most studies had a medium or high risk of bias, especially concerning patient selection and unbiased judgement of the test. Of the six studies with a medium or low risk of bias, the three studies assessing current anxiety and depressive disorders yielded kappa values between 0.69 and 0.84, indicating good agreement. There is insufficient evidence that diagnostic telephone interviews for the diagnosis of psychiatric disorders are valid, although results for depression and anxiety disorders seem promising.
    Social Psychiatry 03/2014; · 2.05 Impact Factor