Instruments

Both the SCAN and the mini-SCAN are intended for clinicians. They are interviewer based and involve clinical judgement. The interviewer has to make sure that sufficient information is gathered through cross-examination before the rating is given and should probe further using his or her own questions when needed. This type of interview is called semi-structured.

Software and algorithms

The mini-SCAN software (computerised interview) is the next stage of I-shell, the software written by the World Health Organization (WHO). This software (made by members of the Advisory Committee of the WHO) is an interview shell, containing the whole SCAN text. It has a passive database. The interviewer must administer it as if it were the paper version, meaning that the choice of sections and items to be administered is completely left to the user. Items or sections can be skipped at the user's discretion. The user is not prompted for missing information. At the end of the interview diagnostic algorithms can be run, resulting in a diagnosis (if any).

The mini-SCAN is entirely web-based and can therefore be used on any computer that has access to the internet. It has ‘active’ software. Positively rated screening questions (one for each section) activate the corresponding sections (e.g. depressive symptoms), where the individual symptom questions follow. One symptom screen will show the question and the definition of the symptom below it. The rating options for symptoms are: ‘0’ (absent or subsymptom level), ‘1’ (symptom level) and? (cannot rate/rating deferred). Sections have dynamic skips, thus avoiding superfluous questions. The program does not allow the user to leave a section without completing it. If all core symptoms (which are the first in the section) are rated absent, the user has the choice either to move to the next section or to complete the present one. The reason to change the ‘passive’ approach was that in our experience of using the SCAN sometimes a diagnosis was not given because of missing information, often just one or a few items. This is no longer possible in the mini-SCAN.

After the symptoms have been rated, the program enters a decision phase, comparable to making a differential diagnosis. In this phase ‘prompts’ are presented to the user, usually history questions, clinical judgement or questions about interference with functioning. The prompts are dependent on the combination of positively rated symptoms and are decisive for the final diagnosis. If for example the criteria for a depressive episode are met, the program presents prompts about prior episodes of depression, mania or mixed episodes. It then produces the diagnosis. In the above case this can be DSM–IV ²¹ major depression (single episode or recurrent) or bipolar disorder, depending on the answers to the prompts. In this prompt phase, symptoms of all sections are considered, much as happens in the clinical diagnostic process. This prompt mechanism makes it possible to handle complex clinical cases with a wide variety of symptoms.

The algorithms produce the DSM–IV diagnoses. The results are shown on the screen in a report, showing the personal data of the individual and interviewer, diagnosis, prompts and the rated items of the administered sections. Also the observed behaviour is presented in the report. This report makes the diagnostic process more transparent.

The raw data can be exported to statistical programs for further analyses. Although the algorithms were developed from scratch, they followed the structure of those made for SCAN 2.1. Both are based on the DSM–IV criteria. For the SCAN 2.1, ICD–10 ²² algorithms are also available.

Design

All consenting participants were interviewed twice within a week with a minimum of a 2-day interval. The instruments were administered in counterbalanced order. Individuals were not made aware of the outcome by the interviewer. After completion of both interviews the diagnosis (if any) was communicated with the attending psychiatrist or resident, who could discuss the outcome with the participant.

Sample

Seventy-six participants were recruited from the Groningen University Medical Centre (UMCG). The University Centre for Psychiatry has in-patient units for emotional (anxiety and affective) disorders, psychotic disorders and several out-patient clinics (bipolar, first psychosis, general out-patient clinic). Another 33 participants were recruited from a community mental health centre in the south of the country (GGZ midden-Brabant).

Participants were in episode when interviewed. Most of them had recently been admitted or enrolled for treatment. Respondents were asked to participate at the discretion of the nursing staff or doctors. It was pointed out that the results would be used for the benefit of their treatment and that non-participation was without consequence. The only prerequisite for participation was that the person had to be able to understand and answer the questions. Of the 109 people we approached, 106 (97%) consented to being interviewed for the validity study. The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the UMCG.

The interview

The interviewers had no knowledge of the participant prior to the interview. In the introductory part of the interview the participant could talk about their symptoms and reasons for treatment. Subsequently the interviewer would ask the screening questions of either the SCAN or mini-SCAN and administer the corresponding symptom sections.

With both instruments the whole episode was covered, which could range from several weeks to months. An episode was defined as a period with clinically significant symptoms, i.e. symptoms with a certain persistence and severity, causing distress or interference with functioning. This is known as the present episode within the SCAN system.

Interviews were administered by very experienced and well-trained clinical psychologists (2) and training psychiatrists (6), each completing between 8 and 25 interviews.

Statistical analysis

All analyses were performed with SPSS 15.0 and AGREE 6 for Windows. ^{Reference Popping23} The unweighted Cohen's kappa for the assignment of participants to diagnostic classes (i.e. no disorder, affective disorder, affective psychosis, non-affective psychosis, anxiety disorder) was the outcome measure for all analyses. We used Landis & Koch's ^{Reference Landis and Koch24} division into classes of agreement: 0.0–0.20, slight; 0.41–0.60, moderate; 0.61–0.80, substantial; 0.81–1.00, almost perfect agreement.

In order to provide a more detailed description of the performance of the mini-SCAN, we calculated its sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive value using the SCAN as gold standard. Sensitivity is the ability to make a true diagnosis, in this case the SCAN diagnosis. Specificity is the measure for identifying a true non-case (a non-case according to the SCAN). Positive predictive value reflects the percentage of mini-SCAN cases which are true (SCAN) cases. Negative predictive value is the percentage of mini-SCAN non-cases which are true (SCAN) non-cases. Efficiency is the measure that expresses the sum total of correct classification of true (SCAN) cases and true (SCAN) non-cases in that class. These parameters are all calculated with a 95% confidence interval.

Psychometry of the mini-SCAN

This study investigated the psychometric properties of the mini-SCAN. These properties are sufficient to have confidence in this offshoot of the SCAN.

With the mini-SCAN it is possible to make a valid psychiatric diagnosis, when compared with the SCAN as the criterion. Concurrent validity, reliability, sensitivity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value are all in the excellent range. This means that the mini-SCAN will identify most of the true (SCAN) cases correctly and that the risk of including false positives is relatively low. The only exception is psychotic depression, for which the agreement was somewhat lower. The interviewers discussed the possible source of the lower reliability for psychotic depression. There was disagreement about symptoms such as the individual's conviction of being worthless. Some interviewers felt this was no more than a severe form of a depressive symptom, whereas others deemed it a psychotic phenomenon. This is a general problem in clinical practice and not limited to the SCAN or mini-SCAN.

Practical properties

The instrument was judged as being user friendly by all users. Those who know the SCAN I-shell interview as well found the software of the mini-SCAN easier and less prone to leading to omissions. The interview was acceptable to virtually all respondents as well. There were no mentions of the mini-SCAN being unpleasant or too long. The duration is significantly shorter than that of the SCAN, without loss of validity. This is an important gain, if the interview is to be applied regularly in clinical settings. However, it takes between 15 and 90 min, with a mean duration of 50 min and this could be viewed as still too long by some potential users. It is our conviction that any in-depth diagnostic interview covering Axis I diagnoses cannot be administered in a very short time in all cases. Day-to-day practice shows that the diagnostic process without a structured interview will take just as long and depends largely on the variety of pathology demonstrated in a given individual and his/her ability to communicate about the symptoms. In fact, taking a symptom history without a structured interview may take even longer. The aim was not to make the shortest interview, but a valid and reliable one.

Mini-SCAN and MINI

A justified question remains: why another diagnostic instrument? The existing diagnostic instruments with a comparable coverage of disorders are: CIDI, SCID, MINI-Plus and SCAN. The instruments vary in their scope, rater requirements, duration and output. ^{Reference Sheehan, Lecrubier, Sheehan, Amorim, Janavs and Weiller5} The only other interview geared towards daily application is the MINI-Plus. Since it has the most in common with the mini-SCAN we will compare the two interviews. The MINI-Plus is comparable with the mini-SCAN in coverage of disorders, although differences exist. The method is different. The questions of the MINI-Plus are more checklist-like. It lacks the definitions of symptoms and the cross-examination technique. These differences in principles and method are not trivial and can lead to different results. ^{Reference Brugha, Bebbington and Jenkins25}

The duration of administration is comparable (MINI-Plus: 15–60 min; mini-SCAN 15–90 min) although the mini-SCAN will on average take more time. This is partly because it covers more symptoms (e.g. psychotic symptoms) that are not necessarily required for classification but may have clinical significance, and partly because of the cross-examination. The MINI-Plus has lifetime and current diagnoses, the mini-SCAN only current diagnoses (although a representative episode can also be investigated). The mini-SCAN offers a full report of all data after administration.

Which to choose: SCAN or mini-SCAN?

The traditional SCAN user is now faced with another choice: SCAN or mini-SCAN. Both instruments rely on clinical cross-examination and clinical judgement and have a glossary of definitions. There are differences, however. First, the SCAN allows assessment of lifetime, representative episode and present state symptoms. Second, the SCAN allows for four severity ratings: absent (0), subclinical level (1), symptom level moderate (2), symptom level severe (3); the mini-SCAN only has two ratings: absent or subclinical level (0) or symptom level (1). Third, the SCAN has far more elaborate definitions of symptoms, more questions per symptom and a wider coverage of symptoms. Last, it has modules such as the clinical history schedule, making it possible to record earlier episodes and diagnoses. This may be particularly important in epidemiological studies.

For research purposes the SCAN is the first choice, particularly if earlier or lifetime pathology is assessed or if comparison with other studies using the SCAN is pursued. For clinical purposes the mini-SCAN might be the right choice, if an assessment of the present episode is required. For clinical studies where the present episode is the only focus of the interview, the mini-SCAN could be considered as well.

Limitations and future direction

The present study has some limitations. The most significant limitation is the number of interviews. This was a matter of workforce and time constraints. Therefore, as a second limitation, a limited number of disorders could be investigated, in order to retain enough observations per diagnostic class. The reported psychometric properties apply to the investigated disorders. However, since other diagnoses were operationalised in the same way, there is no reason to assume that the psychometric properties of the sections covering these diagnoses should deviate from the investigated ones. This is an avenue for further research.

Another limitation was that the mini-SCAN interviewers, though not officially SCAN trained, were to some degree familiar with the SCAN system and principles. Some of the mini-SCAN interviews may have benefited from this excess knowledge and experience, thus positively biasing validity of the mini-SCAN. This raises two issues. First, the validity found in this study may have been positively biased by this familiarity with the SCAN, although the principles of interviewing are identical (screening, cross-examination, probing). Second, it remains to be studied whether the 1-day training format used in this study is sufficient for SCAN-naive interviewers. More experience and research is needed to determine the optimum training format for users without familiarity with the SCAN.

The instrument was developed to allow clinicians to benefit from the merits of (semi-) structured interviews, retaining the SCAN system and principles. Several trainees on SCAN training courses have expressed the need for an instrument that preserves the principles of the SCAN and is practical at the same time. This instrument is now available.