Work

Clinician-administered interviews should not be considered the ‘gold standard’ method of assessing psychological distress

Year: 2023

Type: article

Abstract: Clinician-administered interviews are widely considered the ‘gold standard’ method of assessing psychological distress . We challenge this assumption by noting that there is no empirical evidence demonstrating that psychological distress scores derived from clinician-administered interviews more accurately reflect true psychological distress scores than those derived from self-report questionnaires. Furthermore, we argue that the clinician-administered interview method is not well-suited to measuring subjective experiences of psychological distress and is likely to generate higher levels of measurement error compared to self-reports due to there being two sources of measurement error: the interviewee and the interviewer. Contrary to popular opinion, we argue that the self-report method is superior to the clinician-administered interview method for assessing subjective psychological distress.

Source: New Ideas in Psychology

DOI: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2023.101072

Authors: Philip Hyland, Mark Shevlin

Institutions: National University of Ireland, Maynooth, University of Ulster

Language: English

Topic: Psychological Testing and Assessment

Subfield: Applied Psychology

Field: Psychology

Domain: Social Sciences

SDG: Good health and well-being

Open Access status: green

OpenAlex ID: W4389750145

FWCI: 11.87

Cites: 20

Cited by: 46

Related to: 10