Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

The survey form of SCAN: the feasibility of using experienced lay survey interviewers to administer a semi-structured systematic clinical assessment of psychotic and non-psychotic disorders

By Traolach S. Brugha, F. Nienhuis, D. Bagchi, Jonathan A. Smith and Howard Meltzer


Background. The success of large scale surveys depends on well designed questionnaires and the skills of lay interviewers. Discrepancies in prevalence rates between epidemiological surveys and\ud poor agreement between survey interviewer and clinician diagnostic interviews are giving rise to increasing concern among researchers, public health planners and policy developers. New approaches to information collection are called for. The feasibility of training experienced survey\ud interviewers in semi-structured, clinical, diagnostic interviewing has never been investigated systematically across the range of neurotic and psychotic disorders.\ud \ud Methods. Eight experienced survey interviewers from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) were selected and underwent extended training in a Survey Form of SCAN (SCAN-SF). Sixty-four adults, including a majority of psychiatric in-patients were assessed by ONS interviewers and reinterviewed within a week by SCAN-trained clinicians. Feedback was sought from interviewers and trainers.\ud \ud Results. Trainers found lay interviewers coped at least as well with psychotic as with neurotic symptoms. Concordance for any disorder was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.57 to 0.91); for any specific psychotic disorder 0.63 (0.40 to 0.86); for any specific neurotic disorder 0.63 (0.43 to 0.83). Sensitivity ranged from 0.6 to 0.9 and specificity from 0.8 to 0.9. There was no evidence of rater bias.\ud \ud Conclusions. These preliminary findings are very promising. However, before the SCAN-SF,\ud administered by carefully trained lay interviewers, can be recommended in large scale surveys, further evaluations of its feasibility and reliability in the general population are needed

Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Year: 1999
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (1985). A comparison of clinical and Diagnostic Interview Schedule diagnoses : physician reexamination of lay-interviewed cases in the general population. doi
  2. (1985). Comparison of Lay Diagnostic Interview Schedule and a standardised psychiatric diagnosis. doi
  3. (1983). Comparison of research diagnostic systems in an Edinburgh community sample. doi
  4. (1999). Cross validation of a general population survey diagnostic interview: a comparison of CIS-R with SCAN ICD-10 diagnostic categories. doi
  5. (1994). Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders in the United States. Results from the National Comorbidity Survey. doi
  6. (1996). Lifetime prevalence, demographic risk factors, and diagnostic validity of nonaffective psychosis as assessed in a US community sample. The National Comorbidity Survey. doi
  7. (1998). Limitations of diagnostic criteria and assessment instruments formental disorders. doi
  8. (1974). Measurement and Classification of Psychiatric Symptoms. doi
  9. (1980). Methodological issues in psychiatric caseidentification. doi
  10. (1995). OPCS Surveys of Psychiatric Morbidity in Great Britain. Report 1: The Prevalence of Psychiatric Morbidity among Adults Living in Private Households. doi
  11. (1991). Psychiatric Disorders in America. Free Press : doi
  12. (1996). Reliability and procedural validity of UM-CIDI DSM-III-R phobic disorders. doi
  13. (1994). Reliability and validity studies of the WHOComposite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) : a critical review. doi
  14. (1998). SCAN-SF. A Survey Form of the Present State Examination and SCAN: Supplementary PSE and SCAN Introductory Training Manual for Lay Interviewers.
  15. (1998). SCAN-SF. A Survey Form of the Present State Examination and SCAN: Supplementary schedule for lay interviewers.
  16. (1990). SCAN. Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry.
  17. (1990). Sources of discrepancy in the comparison of a layadministered diagnostic instrument with clinical diagnosis. doi
  18. (1996). The Great Smoky Mountains Study of Youth. Goals, design, methods, and the prevalence of DSM-III-R disorders. doi
  19. (1997). The national psychiatric morbidity surveys of Great Britain – initial findings from the household survey. doi
  20. (1997). The national psychiatric morbidity surveys of Great Britain – strategy and methods. doi
  21. (1981). The Present State Examination used by interviewers from a Survey Agency: report from the Camberwell Community Survey. doi
  22. (1986). The reliability and validity of PSE assessment by lay interviewers : a national population survey. doi
  23. (1997). The scope for increasing the usefulness of population based epidemiological information on need.
  24. (1999). The survey form of SCAN 711
  25. (1980). The use of the present state examination in general population surveys. doi
  26. (1968). Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. doi
  27. (1998). WHO SCAN Advisory Committee. World Health Organization Division of Mental Health:
  28. (1992). World Health Organization doi
  29. (1992). World Health Organization Division of Mental Health doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.