Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:28:45.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating Signs and Symptoms: Comparison of Structured Interview and Clinical Approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2018

William T. Carpenter Jr. ,
Michael H. Sacks ,
John S. Strauss ,
John J. Bartko  and
Judy Rayner
William T. Carpenter Jr.*
Affiliation:
Schizophrenia Research Department of Psychiatry, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York
Michael H. Sacks
Affiliation:
Cornell University Medical School, New York
John S. Strauss
Affiliation:
Clinical Psychiatry Research Programs, Rochester University School of Medicine, Rochester, New York
John J. Bartko
Affiliation:
Division of Biometry, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland
Judy Rayner
Affiliation:
Psychiatric Assessment Section, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland
*
∗Reprint requests to: William T. Carpenter, Jr., M.D., Director, Schizophrenia Research, Department of Psychiatry, Bronx Municipal Hospital Center, Pelham Parkway South and Eastchester Road, Bronx, New York.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Are research interview techniques adequate in assessing signs and symptoms? This question is investigated by obtaining two sets of interview schedule ratings on 49 patients, one by a research psychiatrist applying the interview and one by the patient's psychiatrist using all available information. The latter was considered a clinical standard with which a cross-sectional research interview could be contrasted.

These two data sets were subjected to several types of analysis commonly undertaken with research interview ratings. Results indicated that the research interview adequately represents symptom data, but is seriously lacking in the assessment of observed behaviour. The effect of this difference depends on the goals of the study and the nature of the data analysis. If overall group findings are desired, or if analysis relies primarily on symptom data, results with a research interview may be similar to results based on a far more extensive evaluation. On the other hand, if conclusions are to be drawn on individual patients, or if data analysis relies heavily on observed behaviour, then data derived from research interviews are questionable.

Type
Research Article
Information
The British Journal of Psychiatry , Volume 128 , Issue 4 , April 1976 , pp. 397 - 403
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1976 

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

Bartko, J. J., Strauss, J. S. & Carpenter, W. T. (1971) An evaluation of taxometric techniques for psychiatric data. Bulletin of the Classification Society, 2, 2—28.Google Scholar
Carpenter, W. T. Jr, Strauss, J. S. & Bartko, J. J. (1973) A flexible system for the identification of schizophrenia: a report from the International Pilot Study of Schizophrenia. Science, 182, 1275—8.Google Scholar
Carpenter, W. T. Jr, Strauss, J. S. (1974) Cross-cultural evaluation of Schneider's first rank symptoms of schizophrenia: a report from the International Pilot Study of Schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatry, 131, 682—7.Google Scholar
Cooper, J. E., Kendell, R., Gurland, B. J., Sharpe, L., Copeland, J. R. M. & Simon, R. (1971) Psychiatric Diagnosis in New York and London. Maudsley Monograph Series No. 20. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
DSM II: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, ed. 2. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
Endicott, J. & Spitzer, R. L. (1972) Current and past psychopathology scales (CAPPS): rationale, reliability and validity. Archives of General Psychiatry, 27, 678—82.Google Scholar
Kendell, R. E., Everitt, B., Cooper, J. E., Sartorius, N. & David, M. E. (1968) Reliability of the Present State Examination. Social Psychiatry, 3, 123—9.Google Scholar
Luria, R. E. & McHuoh, P. R. (1974) Reliability and clinical utility of the Wing Present State Examination. Archives of General Psychiatry, 30, 866—71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schneider, K. (1959) Clinical Psychopathology. Transl. by Hamilton, . New York: Grune & Stratton Inc.Google Scholar
Spitzer, R. L. & Endicott, J. (1969) DIAGNO II: further developments in a computer program for psychiatric diagnosis. American Journal of Psychiatry, 125, 12—21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spitzer, R. L. & Endicott, J. Fleiss, J. L. & Cohen, J. (1970) The Psychiatric Status Schedule: a technique for evaluating psychopathology and impairment in role functioning. Archives of General Psychiatry, 23, 41—55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wing, J. K., Cooper, J. E. & Sartorius, N. (1974) The Description and Classification of Psychiatric Symptomatology: An Instruction Manual for the PSE and CATEGO System. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (Eds) (1973) International Pilot Study of Schizophrenia, Volume 1. Geneva: World Health Organization Press.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.