Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:32:05.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Survey and Interview Methods

from Part II - Observational Approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2020

By
Douglas B. Samuel ,
Meredith A. Bucher  and
Takakuni Suzuki
Edited by
Aidan G. C. Wright  and
Michael N. Hallquist
Aidan G. C. Wright
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Michael N. Hallquist
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Summary

Survey and interview methods form the basis of a vast amount of the literature in clinical psychology. After all, the easiest way to infer and measure a psychological state is often to ask the person to report it directly. The chapter discusses the pros and cons of the survey/interview methods and highlights those questions for which they are well-suited, as well as those for which they are not. Although falling under the same broad umbrella, survey and interview methods are further differentiated and suggestions made as to how a researcher might choose among them. Finally, recommend are made of best practices for instrument development and a series of decision points in creating a measure within these formats are outlined.

Keywords

self-reportinformantdirectquestionnairesemistructuredstructuredassessmentmeasurement
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology , pp. 45 - 53
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexander, L. A., McKnight, P. E., Disabato, D. J., & Kashdan, T. B. (2017). When and How to Use Multiple Informants to Improve Clinical Assessments. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 39(4), 669–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and Performance at the Beginning of the New Millennium: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go Next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1‒2), 9–30.Google Scholar
Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2012). Interpreting the MMPI-2-RF. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.Google Scholar
Chmielewski, M., Clark, L. A., Bagby, R. M., & Watson, D. (2015). Method Matters: Understanding Diagnostic Reliability in DSM-IV and DSM-5. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124(3), 764–769.Google Scholar
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing Validity: Basic Issues in Objective Scale Development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct Validity in Psychological Tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
First, M. B., Bhat, V., Adler, D., Dixon, L., Goldman, B., Koh, S., … Siris, S. (2014). How Do Clinicians Actually Use the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in Clinical Practice and Why We Need to Know More. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 202(12), 841–844.Google Scholar
First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. W. (1996). Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.Google Scholar
Froman, R. D. (2014). The Ins and Outs of Self-Report Response Options and Scales. Research in Nursing & Health, 37(6), 447–451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haeffel, G. J., & Howard, G. S. (2010). Self-Report: Psychology’s Four-Letter Word. American Journal of Psychology, 123(2), 181–188.Google Scholar
Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria: What Did They Really Say? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 202–220.Google Scholar
Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective Tests as Instruments of Psychological Theory. Psychological Reports, 3(4), 635–694.Google Scholar
Loevinger, J. (1979). Construct Validity of the Sentence Completion Test of Ego Development. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 281–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test Theory: A Unified Treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.Google Scholar
Morey, L. C., & Benson, K. T. (2016). An Investigation of Adherence to Diagnostic Criteria, Revisited: Clinical Diagnosis of the DSM-IV/DSM-5 SECTION II Personality Disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 30(1), 130–144.Google Scholar
Newman, J. C., Jarlais, D., Turner, C. F., Gribble, J., Cooley, P., & Paone, D. (2002). The Differential Effects of Face-to-Face and Computer Interview Modes. American Journal of Public Health, 92(2), 294–297.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling More Than We Can Know ‒ Verbal Reports on Mental Processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259.Google Scholar
Ong, A. D., & Weiss, D. J. (2000). The Impact of Anonymity on Responses to Sensitive Questions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(8), 1691–1708.Google Scholar
Perry, J. C. (1992). Problems and Considerations in the Valid Assessment of Personality Disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 149(12), 1645–1653.Google Scholar
Poulin, M. (2010). Reporting on First Sexual Experience: The Importance of Interviewer-Respondent Interaction. Demographic Research, 22, 237–287.Google Scholar
Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal Number of Response Categories in Rating Scales: Reliability, Validity, Discriminating Power, and Respondent Preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Rescorla, L. A., Achenbach, T. M., Ivanova, M. Y., Turner, L. V., Arnadottir, H., Au, A., … Zasepa, E. (2016). Collateral Reports and Cross-Informant Agreement about Adult Psychopathology in 14 Societies. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 38(3), 381–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodebaugh, T. L., Woods, C. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (2007). The Reverse of Social Anxiety Is Not Always the Opposite: The Reverse-Scored Items of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale Do Not Belong. Behavior Therapy, 38(2), 192–206.Google Scholar
Rogers, R. (2001). Handbook of Diagnostic and Structured Interviewing. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Samuel, D. B. (2015). A Review of the Agreement Between Clinicians’ Personality Disorder Diagnoses and Those From Other Methods and Sources. Clinical Psychology-Science and Practice, 22(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
Samuel, D. B., Riddell, A. D. B., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., & Widiger, T. A. (2012). A Five-Factor Measure of Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94(5), 456–465.Google Scholar
Samuel, D. B., Suzuki, T., & Griffin, S. A. (2016). Clinicians and Clients Disagree: Five Implications for Clinical Science. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(7), 1001–1010.Google Scholar
Simms, L. J., Goldberg, L. R., Watson, D., Roberts, J., & Welte, J. (2013). The CAT-PD Project: Introducing an Integrative Model & Efficient Measure of Personality Disorder Traits. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Psychopathology, Oakland, CA.Google Scholar
Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Zapolski, T. C. B. (2009). On the Value of Homogeneous Constructs for Construct Validation, Theory Testing, and the Description of Psychopathology. Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 272–284.Google Scholar
Strauss, M. E., & Smith, G. T. (2009). Construct Validity: Advances in Theory and Methodology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 1–25.Google Scholar
Tackett, J. L., Herzhoff, K., Reardon, K. W., Smack, A. J., & Kushner, S. C. (2013). The Relevance of Informant Discrepancies for the Assessment of Adolescent Personality Pathology. Clinical Psychology-Science and Practice, 20(4), 378–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tay, L., & Kuykendall, L. (2017). Why Self-Reports of Happiness and Sadness May Not Necessarily Contradict Bipolarity: A Psychometric Review and Proposal. Emotion Review, 9, 146–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trull, T. J., & Ebner-Priemer, U. (2013). Ambulatory Assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 9(9), 151–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Sonderen, E., Sanderman, R., & Coyne, J. C. (2013). Ineffectiveness of Reverse Wording of Questionnaire Items: Let’s Learn from Cows in the Rain. Plos One, 8(7), e68967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Vaerenbergh, Y., & Thomas, T. D. (2013). Response Styles in Survey Research: A Literature Review of Antecedents, Consequences, and Remedies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25(2), 195–217.Google Scholar
Vazire, S. (2010). Who Knows What About a Person? The Self-Other Knowledge Asymmetry (SOKA) Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 281–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watson, D. (2004). Stability versus Change, Dependability versus Error: Issues in the Assessment of Personality over Time. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(4), 319–350.Google Scholar
Widiger, T. A., & Samuel, D. B. (2005). Evidence-Based Assessment of Personality Disorders. Psychological Assessment, 17(3), 278–287.Google Scholar
Zetin, M., & Glenn, T. (1999). Development of a Computerized Psychiatric Diagnostic Interview for Use by Mental Health and Primary Care Clinicians. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2(3), 223–229.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×