Measuring social anxiety and obsessive-compulsive spectra: Comparison of interviews and self-report instruments

Clicks: 341
ID: 72124
2002
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #10 of 20 articles by views in comprehensive psychiatry

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The present report analyzes the agreement between the interview and the self-report formats of the instruments Structured Clinical Interview for Social Anxiety Spectrum (SCI-SHY) and Structured Clinical Interview for Obsessive Compulsive Spectrum (SCI-OBS), already validated, in three psychiatric patient samples and controls. Thirty patients (10 with obsessive-compulsive disorder [OCD], 10 with social anxiety disorder [SAD], 10 with recurrent unipolar depression in remission) and 20 control subjects (10 university students, 10 ophthalmologic patients) were assessed using the SCI-SHY, the SCI-OBS, and the self report version of the two instruments. Agreement between the two versions was very good for the seven SCI-OBS domains (with intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs] ranging from 0.80 to 0.96) and the four SCI-SHY domains (ICCs from 0.74 to 0.90). When items were analyzed individually, subjects tended to under-report some phobia-related problems in the interview. The total number of items endorsed in the SCI-SHY, but not in the SCI-OBS, was affected by the order of administration: when the SCI-SHY interview was administered first, subjects reported a median of five more symptoms; when the self-report was administered first, there was no significant difference in the number of symptoms endorsed in the two formats. However, this difference is not clinically important, given the large number of items comprising the instruments, and might be explained by the fact that subjects are likely to overemphasize occasional symptoms or behaviors when they are asked by the interviewer to answer a long series of [ldquo ]new[rdquo ] questions as accurately as possible. Given the high agreement between domain scores in the two formats of the instruments and the fact that scores are virtually identical when the self-report is administered first, we recommend the use of the self-report versions in clinical and research settings.
Reference Key
dellosso2002measuringcomprehensive Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Dell'Osso, Liliana;Rucci, Paola;Cassano, Giovanni B.;Maser, Jack D.;Endicott, Jean;Shear, M.Katherine;Sarno, Nannina;Saettoni, Marco;Grochocinski, Victoria J.;Frank, Ellen;
Journal comprehensive psychiatry
Year 2002
DOI
DOI not found
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.