BACKGROUND: We describe the development, reliability and applications of the Diagnostic Interview for Psychoses (DIP), a comprehensive interview schedule for psychotic disorders. METHOD: The DIP is intended for use by interviewers with a clinical background and was designed to occupy the middle ground between fully structured, lay-administered schedules, and semi-structured, psychiatrist-administered interviews. It encompasses four main domains: (a) demographic data; (b) social functioning and disability; (c) a diagnostic module comprising symptoms, signs and past history ratings; and (d) patterns of service utilization and patient-perceived need for services. It generates diagnoses according to several sets of criteria using the OPCRIT computerized diagnostic algorithm and can be administered either on-screen or in a hard-copy format. RESULTS: The DIP proved easy to use and was well accepted in the field. For the diagnostic module, inter-rater reliability was assessed on 20 cases rated by 24 clinicians: good reliability was demonstrated for both ICD-10 and DSM-III-R diagnoses. Seven cases were interviewed 2-11 weeks apart to determine test-retest reliability, with pairwise agreement of 0.8-1.0 for most items. Diagnostic validity was assessed in 10 cases, interviewed with the DIP and using the SCAN as 'gold standard': in nine cases clinical diagnoses were in agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The DIP is suitable for use in large-scale epidemiological studies of psychotic disorders, as well as in smaller studies where time is at a premium. While the diagnostic module stands on its own, the full DIP schedule, covering demography, social functioning and service utilization makes it a versatile multi-purpose tool.
BACKGROUND: We describe the development, reliability and applications of the Diagnostic Interview for Psychoses (DIP), a comprehensive interview schedule for psychotic disorders. METHOD: The DIP is intended for use by interviewers with a clinical background and was designed to occupy the middle ground between fully structured, lay-administered schedules, and semi-structured, psychiatrist-administered interviews. It encompasses four main domains: (a) demographic data; (b) social functioning and disability; (c) a diagnostic module comprising symptoms, signs and past history ratings; and (d) patterns of service utilization and patient-perceived need for services. It generates diagnoses according to several sets of criteria using the OPCRIT computerized diagnostic algorithm and can be administered either on-screen or in a hard-copy format. RESULTS: The DIP proved easy to use and was well accepted in the field. For the diagnostic module, inter-rater reliability was assessed on 20 cases rated by 24 clinicians: good reliability was demonstrated for both ICD-10 and DSM-III-R diagnoses. Seven cases were interviewed 2-11 weeks apart to determine test-retest reliability, with pairwise agreement of 0.8-1.0 for most items. Diagnostic validity was assessed in 10 cases, interviewed with the DIP and using the SCAN as 'gold standard': in nine cases clinical diagnoses were in agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The DIP is suitable for use in large-scale epidemiological studies of psychotic disorders, as well as in smaller studies where time is at a premium. While the diagnostic module stands on its own, the full DIP schedule, covering demography, social functioning and service utilization makes it a versatile multi-purpose tool.
Authors: Andrew Zalesky; Alex Fornito; Marc L Seal; Luca Cocchi; Carl-Fredrik Westin; Edward T Bullmore; Gary F Egan; Christos Pantelis Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2010-10-29 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Lena K L Oestreich; Amanda E Lyall; Ofer Pasternak; Zora Kikinis; Dominick T Newell; Peter Savadjiev; Sylvain Bouix; Martha E Shenton; Marek Kubicki; Thomas J Whitford; Simon McCarthy-Jones Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Michele T Pato; Janet L Sobell; Helena Medeiros; Colony Abbott; Brooke M Sklar; Peter F Buckley; Evelyn J Bromet; Michael A Escamilla; Ayman H Fanous; Douglas S Lehrer; Fabio Macciardi; Dolores Malaspina; Steve A McCarroll; Stephen R Marder; Jennifer Moran; Christopher P Morley; Humberto Nicolini; Diana O Perkins; Shaun M Purcell; Mark H Rapaport; Pamela Sklar; Jordan W Smoller; James A Knowles; Carlos N Pato Journal: Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet Date: 2013-05-03 Impact factor: 3.568
Authors: P E Rasser; U Schall; J Todd; P T Michie; P B Ward; P Johnston; K Helmbold; V Case; A Søyland; P A Tooney; P M Thompson Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2009-06-26 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Alana M Shepherd; Yann Quidé; Kristin R Laurens; Nicole O'Reilly; Jesseca E Rowland; Philip B Mitchell; Vaughan J Carr; Melissa J Green Journal: J Psychiatry Neurosci Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 6.186
Authors: Nikos C Stefanis; Milan Dragovic; Brian D Power; Assen Jablensky; David Castle; Vera Anne Morgan Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2013-01-11 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Ashleigh Lin; Patsy Di Prinzio; Deidra Young; Peter Jacoby; Andrew Whitehouse; Flavie Waters; Assen Jablensky; Vera A Morgan Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2016-04-30 Impact factor: 9.306