Validity and limitations of the Brazilian version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI 2.1)

• Autor(a) principal: Quintana,Maria Inês
• Data de Publicação: 2007
• Outros Autores: Gastal,Fábio Leite, Jorge,Miguel Roberto, Miranda,Cláudio Torres, Andreoli,Sérgio Baxter
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry (São Paulo. 1999. Online)
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-44462007000100007
• topic: Diagnosis; Psychiatric status rating scales; Validity of tests; Interview/psychological

OBJECTIVE: To study the concurrent validity of the Brazilian Composite International Diagnostic Interview 2.1 using as gold standard the clinical diagnoses based on the ICD-10 criteria and the Longitudinal, Expert, All Data (LEAD) procedure. METHOD: The sample was composed of 185 subjects selected at psychiatric hospitals, psychiatric outpatient units, the community, and primary care services. These individuals were intentionally selected according to 9 diagnostic groups. Instruments: Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI-core) version 2.1 (paper-and-pencil) administered by 16 trained interviewers. Analysis: concurrent validity of diagnoses of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview 12-month. RESULTS: Values found for sensitivity and specificity in each diagnosis were: alcohol-related disorders (79.5%/97.2%); psychoactive substance-related disorders (77.3%/100%); schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders (28.6%/93.9%); manic episode and bipolar affective disorder (38.9%/96.4%); depressive disorder (82.5%/ 93.8%); phobic-anxiety disorder (80.6%/93.5%); obsessive-compulsive disorder (18.2%/98.9%); somatoform disorder (41.7%/90.8%); eating disorder (45.5%/100.0%). CONCLUSION: The Composite International Diagnostic Interview proved to be valid for diagnoses of alcohol-related disorders, psychoactive substance-related disorders, depressive disorder and phobic-anxiety disorder. The probable explanations for the poor performance for the other diagnoses were: necessity of some clinical judgement by the lay interviewer; difficulty to use the Probe Flow Chart; interviewees' difficulty of understanding; and lack of mechanisms to certify the veracity of the information.