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.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 46 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.