Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T03:34:24.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN 2.1) as a diagnostic interview providing dimensional measures: Cross-national findings on the psychometric properties of psychopathology scales

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2020

Matthias Schützwohl ,
Thomas Kallert  and
Luisa Jurjanz
Matthias Schützwohl*
Affiliation:
Dresden University of Technology, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Fetscherstr. 74, D-01307Dresden, Germany
Thomas Kallert
Affiliation:
Dresden University of Technology, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Fetscherstr. 74, D-01307Dresden, Germany
Luisa Jurjanz
Affiliation:
Dresden University of Technology, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Fetscherstr. 74, D-01307Dresden, Germany
*
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 351 458 5490; fax: +49 351 458 5308. E-mail address:matthias.schuetzwohl@tu-dresden.de (M. Schützwohl).
Get access

Abstract

Background

The Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN) is a set of clinical assessment instruments developed under the auspices of WHO. In contrast to other structured diagnostic interviews, SCAN also provides possibilities for dimensional assessment of psychopathology. This paper reports cross-national findings on the psychometric properties of psychopathology scales derived from SCAN 2.1.

Methods

Within a randomized controlled trial, SCAN 2.1 was used in Dresden (Germany), Michalovce (Slovak Republic), Prague (Czech Republic), and Wrocław (Poland). Forty-seven items from Part I of SCAN 2.1, identified as qualifying for constructing dimensional measures, were, on the one hand, grouped according to their allocation to five specific SCAN 2.1 sections. On the other hand, principal component analyses were used to group the items according to their statistical relationship. To estimate the reliability of the scales, Cronbach's α was computed. To assess factor similarity across sites, Tucker's congruence coefficients were calculated. To appraise concurrent validity, mean scale scores were compared across different diagnostic groups.

Results

Reliability was qualified as moderate to substantial for all generated scales. Factor-solutions differed across sites. Differences in mean scores supported the assumption that the scales might possess, in addition to face validity, concurrent validity.

Conclusions

This is the first cross-national study on the psychometric properties of psychopathology scales derived from SCAN 2.1, and findings are very encouraging concerning its use as a dimensional measure. However, further studies are needed to substantiate implementation of the scales established.

Keywords

Schedules for Clinical Assessment in NeuropsychiatryDimensional diagnosticsPsychopathology
Type
Original article
Information
European Psychiatry , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , May 2007 , pp. 229 - 238
Copyright
Copyright © Elsevier Masson SAS 2007

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

Aalto-Setälä, T.Haarasilta, L.Marttunen, M.Tuulio-Henriksson, A.Poikolainen, K.Aro, H.et al.Major depressive episode among young adults: CIDI-SF versus SCAN consensus diagnoses. Psychol Med 2002;32:1309–1314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrett, P.T.Petrides, K.V.Eysenck, S.B.G.Eysenck, H.J.The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire: an examination of the factorial similarity of P, E, N, and L across 34 countries. Pers Ind Diff 1997;25:805–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biehl, H.Maurer, K.Jung, E.Krüger, G.Bauer-Schubert, C.Reported symptoms in schizophrenic patients within five years of the onset of illness. In: Dencker, S.J.Kulhanek, F., editors. Treatment resistance in schizophrenia. Braunschweig, D: Vieweg; 1988. p. 108–118.Google Scholar
Brugha, T.S.The end of the beginning: a requiem for the categorization of mental disorder? Psychol Med 2002;32:1149–1154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brugha, T.S.Bebbington, P.E.Jenkins, R.Meltzer, H.Taub, N.A.Janas, M.et al.Cross validation of a general population survey diagnostic interview: a comparison of CIS-R with SCAN ICD-10 diagnostic categories. Psychol Med 1999;29:1029–1042.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brugha, T.S.Jenkins, R.Taub, N.Meltzer, H.Bebbington, P.E.A general population comparison of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) and the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN). Psychol Med 2001;31:1001–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, A.T.Tien, A.Y.Chang, C.J.Brugha, T.S.Cooper, J.E.Lee, C.S.et al.Cross-cultural implementation of a Chinese version of the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN) in Taiwan. Br J Psychiatry 2001;178:567–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, G.Design and analysis of reliability studies. London: Edward Arnold; 1989.Google Scholar
Easton, C.Meza, E.Mager, D.Ulüg, B.Kilic, C.Göğüs, A.et al.Test-retest reliability of the alcohol and drug use disorder sections of the schedules for clinical assessment in neuropsychiatry (SCAN). Drug Alcohol Depend 1999;47:187–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabrigar, L.R.Wegener, D.T.MacCallum, R.C.Strahan, E.J.Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods 1999;3:272–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldt, L.S.Woodruff, D.J.Salih, F.A.Statistical Inference for coefficient alpha. Appl Psych Meas 1987;11:93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
First, M.B.Robert, L.Spitzer, R.L.Gibbon, M.Williams, J.B.W.Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I). Arlington, USA: American Psychiatric Publishing; 1997.Google Scholar
Goldberg, D.Plato versus Aristotle: categorical and dimensional models for common mental disorders. Compr Psychiatry 2000;41(Suppl. 1):8–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Häfner, H.Maurer, K.Trendler, G.an der Heiden, W.Schmidt, M.The early course of schizophrenia and depression. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2005;255:167–173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jordanova, V.Wickramesinghe, C.Gerada, C.Prince, M.Validation of two survey diagnostic interviews among primary care attendees: a comparison of CIS-R and CIDI with SCAN ICD-10 diagnostic categories. Psychol Med 2004;34:1013–1024.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kallert, T.Priebe, S.Schützwohl, M.Briscoe, J.Glöckner, M., EDEN -study group. The role of acute day hospital treatment for mental health care: research context and practical problems of carrying out the international multi-centre EDEN-study. In: Kirch, W., editors. Public Health in Europe. 10 Years EUPHA. Berlin, D: Springer; 2004. p. 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallert, T.W.Matthes, C.Glöckner, M.Eichler, T.Koch, R.Schützwohl, M.Akutpsychiatrische tagesklinische Behandlung: Ein effektivitätsgesichertes Versorgungsangebot? Psychiat Prax 2004;31:409–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallert, T.W.Schützwohl, M., Matthes C und the EDEN Study Group. The client socio-demographic and clinical history inventory. Dresden, D: Dresden, University of Technology; 2000.Google Scholar
Kendell, R.E.The role of diagnosis in psychiatry. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1975.Google Scholar
Lauterbach, E.Rumpf, H.-J.Ahrens, B.Haug, H.-J.Schaub, R.Schönell, H.et al.Assessing dimensional and categorical aspects of depression. Validation of the AMDP Depression Scale. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2005;255:15–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maurer, K.Stein, A.Uhlmann-Jäger, T.Ullrich, S.Schützwohl, M.Jurjanz, J., et al. (editors). Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry, Version 2.1 (Available from the German SCAN Centres: Central Institute for Mental Health, Mannheim; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy at the University Hospital of the Dresden University of Technology).Google Scholar
McGuffin, P.Farmer, A.E.Harvey, I.A polydiagnostic application of operational criteria in studies of psychotic illness. Development and reliability of the OPCRIT system. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1991;48:764–770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Melzer, D.Tom, B.D.Brugha, T.S.Fryers, T.Meltzer, H.Common mental disorder symptom counts in populations; are there distinct case groups above epidemiological cut-offs?. Psychol Med 2002;32:1195–1201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rijnders, C.A.van den Berg, J.F.Hodiamont, P.P.Nienhuis, F.J.Furer, J.W.Mulder, J.et al.Psychometric properties of the schedules for clinical assessment in neuropsychiatry (SCAN 2.1). Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2000;35:348–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenman, S.Korten, A.Medway, J.Evans, M.Characterising psychosis in the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing Study on low prevalence (psychotic) disorders. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2000;34:792–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartorius, N.SCAN translation. In: Wing, J.K.Sartorius, N.Üstün, T.B., editors. Diagnosis and clinical measurement in psychiatry. A reference manual for SCAN. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1998. p. 44–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schene, A.Koeter, M.van Wijngaarden, B.Knudsen, H.C.Leese, M.Ruggeri, M.et al.Methodology of a multi-site reliability study. EPSILON Study 3. Br J Psychiatry 2000;177(Suppl. 39):15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schützwohl, M.Jarosz-Nowak, J.Briscoe, J.Szajowski, K.Kallert, T.W.EDEN, Study Group. Interraterreliability of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS 4.0) and the Groningen Social Disabilities Schedule (GSDS-II) in a European multi-site randomised controlled trial on the effectiveness of acute psychiatric day hospitals. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2003;12:197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schützwohl, M.Kallert, T.W.Jurjanz, L.Möglichkeiten der dimensionalen Diagnostik mit der deutschsprachigen Version der Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN 2.1). Nervenarzt; in press [cf. http://springerlink.metapress.com/media/egegvmvrug5ea223recn/contributions/0/2/8/6/028661706tg0774n_html/fulltext.html].Google Scholar
Sheehan, D.V.Lecrubier, Y.Sheehan, K.H.Amorim, P.Janavs, J.Weiller, E.et al.The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry 1998;59(Suppl 20):22–33.Google ScholarPubMed
Sočan, G.The incremental value of minimum rank factor analysis. Groningen, NL: Groningen University Library; 2003.Google Scholar
Tucker, L.R.A method for synthesis of factor analytic studies (Personal Research Section Report No. 984). Washington D.C.: Department of the Army; 1951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiersma, D.de Jong, A.Kraaijkamp, H.J.M.Ormel, J.GSDS II: The Groningen Social Disabilities Schedule, second revision: Manual, questionnaire and rating form. Groningen: University of Groningen, Department of Social Psychiatry; 1990.Google Scholar
Wing, J.K.The PSE tradition and its continuation in SCAN. In: Wing, J.K.Sartorius, N.Üstün, T.B., editors. Diagnosis and clinical measurement in psychiatry. A reference manual for SCAN. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1998. p. 12–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wing, J.K.Cooper, J.E.Sartorius, N.The description classification of psychiatric symptoms. An instruction manual for the PSE and Catego Program. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1974.Google Scholar
Wing, J.K.Nixon, J.M.Mann, S.A.Leff, J.P.Reliability of the PSE (ninth edition) used in a population study. Psychol Med 1977;7:505–516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wing, J.K.Sartorius, N.Der, G.International field trials: SCAN-0. In: Wing, J.K.Sartorius, N.Üstün, T.B., editors. Diagnosis and clinical measurement in psychiatry. A reference manual for SCAN. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1998. p. 86–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wing, J.K.Sartorius, N.Üstün, T.B.Clinical, educational and scientific uses. In: Wing, J.K.Sartorius, N.Üstün, T.B., editors. Diagnosis and clinical measurement in psychiatry. A reference manual for SCAN. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1998. p. 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization. Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (Version 1.0). Geneva, CH: WHO; 1992.Google Scholar
World Health Organization. Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), version 2.1. Geneva, CH: WHO; 1993.Google Scholar
World Health Organization. Schedules for clinical assessment in neuropsychiatry (Version 2.0). Geneva, CH: WHO – Assessment, Classification and Epidemiology; 1994.Google Scholar
World Health Organization. Schedules for clinical assessment in neuropsychiatry (Version 2.1). Geneva, CH: WHO – Assessment, Classification and Epidemiology; 1999.Google Scholar
Wouters, L.Amsterdam Alpha-testing Program ALPHA.EXE. Amsterdam, NL: Academic Medical Centre; 1998.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.