A Comparison of Self-report and Clinical Diagnostic Interviews for Depression
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 1 March 2000
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA) in Archives of General Psychiatry
- Vol. 57 (3) , 217-222
- https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.57.3.217
Abstract
AN IMPORTANT justification for the Epidemiologic Catchment Area (ECA) program, and the "third generation" of psychiatric epidemiology ushered in by the program, was the purported ability to link results from epidemiologic research to results from research conducted in laboratories and clinics.1-3 The link was made possible by the structure of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS),4 which was designed to generate information of the type obtained in a psychiatric interview. A potential weakness of the DIS was its reliance on the judgments and insights of the respondent instead of a psychiatrist. Validation studies in medical settings have shown good agreement between the DIS and a clinical interview4; however, validation studies conducted in the context of household surveys show weaker agreement.5,6Keywords
This publication has 7 references indexed in Scilit:
- Psychopathology and attrition in the Baltimore ECA 15-year follow-up 1981-1996Social psychiatry. Sozialpsychiatrie. Psychiatrie sociale, 1999
- Onset and recovery from panic disorder in the Baltimore Epidemiologic Catchment Area follow-upThe British Journal of Psychiatry, 1998
- Problems in Defining Clinical Significance in Epidemiological StudiesArchives of General Psychiatry, 1998
- Diagnosis and Need for Treatment Are Not the SameArchives of General Psychiatry, 1998
- Screening for Psychosis in the General Population with a Self-Report InterviewJournal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 1991
- Methods in observational epidemiologyJournal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 1987
- Are the lifetime prevalence estimates in the ECA study accurate?Psychological Medicine, 1987