Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Clinical Psychological Science
- Part II Observational Approaches
- 4 The Conceptual Foundations of Descriptive Psychopathology
- 5 Survey and Interview Methods
- 6 Psychometrics in Clinical Psychological Research
- 7 Latent Variable Models in Clinical Psychology
- 8 Psychiatric Epidemiology Methods
- Part III Experimental and Biological Approaches
- Part IV Developmental Psychopathology and Longitudinal Methods
- Part V Intervention Approaches
- Part VI Intensive Longitudinal Designs
- Part VII General Analytic Considerations
- Index
- References
5 - Survey and Interview Methods
from Part II - Observational Approaches
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 March 2020
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Clinical Psychological Science
- Part II Observational Approaches
- 4 The Conceptual Foundations of Descriptive Psychopathology
- 5 Survey and Interview Methods
- 6 Psychometrics in Clinical Psychological Research
- 7 Latent Variable Models in Clinical Psychology
- 8 Psychiatric Epidemiology Methods
- Part III Experimental and Biological Approaches
- Part IV Developmental Psychopathology and Longitudinal Methods
- Part V Intervention Approaches
- Part VI Intensive Longitudinal Designs
- Part VII General Analytic Considerations
- Index
- References
Summary
Survey and interview methods form the basis of a vast amount of the literature in clinical psychology. After all, the easiest way to infer and measure a psychological state is often to ask the person to report it directly. The chapter discusses the pros and cons of the survey/interview methods and highlights those questions for which they are well-suited, as well as those for which they are not. Although falling under the same broad umbrella, survey and interview methods are further differentiated and suggestions made as to how a researcher might choose among them. Finally, recommend are made of best practices for instrument development and a series of decision points in creating a measure within these formats are outlined.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Alexander, L. A., McKnight, P. E., Disabato, D. J., & Kashdan, T. B. (2017). When and How to Use Multiple Informants to Improve Clinical Assessments. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 39(4), 669–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and Performance at the Beginning of the New Millennium: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go Next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1‒2), 9–30.Google Scholar
Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2012). Interpreting the MMPI-2-RF. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.Google Scholar
Chmielewski, M., Clark, L. A., Bagby, R. M., & Watson, D. (2015). Method Matters: Understanding Diagnostic Reliability in DSM-IV and DSM-5. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124(3), 764–769.Google Scholar
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing Validity: Basic Issues in Objective Scale Development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct Validity in Psychological Tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
First, M. B., Bhat, V., Adler, D., Dixon, L., Goldman, B., Koh, S., … Siris, S. (2014). How Do Clinicians Actually Use the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in Clinical Practice and Why We Need to Know More. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 202(12), 841–844.Google Scholar
First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. W. (1996). Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.Google Scholar
Froman, R. D. (2014). The Ins and Outs of Self-Report Response Options and Scales. Research in Nursing & Health, 37(6), 447–451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haeffel, G. J., & Howard, G. S. (2010). Self-Report: Psychology’s Four-Letter Word. American Journal of Psychology, 123(2), 181–188.Google Scholar
Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria: What Did They Really Say? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 202–220.Google Scholar
Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective Tests as Instruments of Psychological Theory. Psychological Reports, 3(4), 635–694.Google Scholar
Loevinger, J. (1979). Construct Validity of the Sentence Completion Test of Ego Development. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 281–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test Theory: A Unified Treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.Google Scholar
Morey, L. C., & Benson, K. T. (2016). An Investigation of Adherence to Diagnostic Criteria, Revisited: Clinical Diagnosis of the DSM-IV/DSM-5 SECTION II Personality Disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 30(1), 130–144.Google Scholar
Newman, J. C., Jarlais, D., Turner, C. F., Gribble, J., Cooley, P., & Paone, D. (2002). The Differential Effects of Face-to-Face and Computer Interview Modes. American Journal of Public Health, 92(2), 294–297.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling More Than We Can Know ‒ Verbal Reports on Mental Processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259.Google Scholar
Ong, A. D., & Weiss, D. J. (2000). The Impact of Anonymity on Responses to Sensitive Questions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(8), 1691–1708.Google Scholar
Perry, J. C. (1992). Problems and Considerations in the Valid Assessment of Personality Disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 149(12), 1645–1653.Google Scholar
Poulin, M. (2010). Reporting on First Sexual Experience: The Importance of Interviewer-Respondent Interaction. Demographic Research, 22, 237–287.Google Scholar
Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal Number of Response Categories in Rating Scales: Reliability, Validity, Discriminating Power, and Respondent Preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Rescorla, L. A., Achenbach, T. M., Ivanova, M. Y., Turner, L. V., Arnadottir, H., Au, A., … Zasepa, E. (2016). Collateral Reports and Cross-Informant Agreement about Adult Psychopathology in 14 Societies. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 38(3), 381–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodebaugh, T. L., Woods, C. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (2007). The Reverse of Social Anxiety Is Not Always the Opposite: The Reverse-Scored Items of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale Do Not Belong. Behavior Therapy, 38(2), 192–206.Google Scholar
Rogers, R. (2001). Handbook of Diagnostic and Structured Interviewing. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Samuel, D. B. (2015). A Review of the Agreement Between Clinicians’ Personality Disorder Diagnoses and Those From Other Methods and Sources. Clinical Psychology-Science and Practice, 22(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
Samuel, D. B., Riddell, A. D. B., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., & Widiger, T. A. (2012). A Five-Factor Measure of Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94(5), 456–465.Google Scholar
Samuel, D. B., Suzuki, T., & Griffin, S. A. (2016). Clinicians and Clients Disagree: Five Implications for Clinical Science. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(7), 1001–1010.Google Scholar
Simms, L. J., Goldberg, L. R., Watson, D., Roberts, J., & Welte, J. (2013). The CAT-PD Project: Introducing an Integrative Model & Efficient Measure of Personality Disorder Traits. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Psychopathology, Oakland, CA.Google Scholar
Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Zapolski, T. C. B. (2009). On the Value of Homogeneous Constructs for Construct Validation, Theory Testing, and the Description of Psychopathology. Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 272–284.Google Scholar
Strauss, M. E., & Smith, G. T. (2009). Construct Validity: Advances in Theory and Methodology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 1–25.Google Scholar
Tackett, J. L., Herzhoff, K., Reardon, K. W., Smack, A. J., & Kushner, S. C. (2013). The Relevance of Informant Discrepancies for the Assessment of Adolescent Personality Pathology. Clinical Psychology-Science and Practice, 20(4), 378–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tay, L., & Kuykendall, L. (2017). Why Self-Reports of Happiness and Sadness May Not Necessarily Contradict Bipolarity: A Psychometric Review and Proposal. Emotion Review, 9, 146–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trull, T. J., & Ebner-Priemer, U. (2013). Ambulatory Assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 9(9), 151–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Sonderen, E., Sanderman, R., & Coyne, J. C. (2013). Ineffectiveness of Reverse Wording of Questionnaire Items: Let’s Learn from Cows in the Rain. Plos One, 8(7), e68967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Vaerenbergh, Y., & Thomas, T. D. (2013). Response Styles in Survey Research: A Literature Review of Antecedents, Consequences, and Remedies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25(2), 195–217.Google Scholar
Vazire, S. (2010). Who Knows What About a Person? The Self-Other Knowledge Asymmetry (SOKA) Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 281–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watson, D. (2004). Stability versus Change, Dependability versus Error: Issues in the Assessment of Personality over Time. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(4), 319–350.Google Scholar
Widiger, T. A., & Samuel, D. B. (2005). Evidence-Based Assessment of Personality Disorders. Psychological Assessment, 17(3), 278–287.Google Scholar
Zetin, M., & Glenn, T. (1999). Development of a Computerized Psychiatric Diagnostic Interview for Use by Mental Health and Primary Care Clinicians. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2(3), 223–229.Google Scholar