We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
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.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.