Original ArticlesAssessment of Clinical Information Comparison of the Validity of a Structured Clinical Interview (the SCID) and the Clinical Diagnostic InterviewDrill, Rebecca PhD*; Nakash, Ora PhD†; DeFife, Jared A. PhD‡; Westen, Drew PhD§Author Information *Department of Psychiatry, Cambridge Health Alliance and Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, MA; †School of Psychology, Interdisciplinary Center, IDC, Herzliya, Israel; ‡Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine; and §Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. This manuscript was supported by National Institutes of Mental Health Grant 5R01-MH78100. Send reprint requests to Rebecca Drill, PhD, Cambridge Health Alliance, 1493 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, MA 02139. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease: June 2015 - Volume 203 - Issue 6 - p 459-462 doi: 10.1097/NMD.0000000000000300 Buy Metrics Abstract Adaptive functioning is a key aspect of psychiatric diagnosis and assessment in research and practice. This study compared adaptive functioning validity ratings from Structured Clinical Interviews (SCIDs, symptom-focused structured diagnostic interviews), and Clinical Diagnostic Interviews (CDIs, systematic diagnostic interviews modeling naturalistic clinical interactions focusing on relational narratives). Two hundred forty-five patients (interviewed by two independent interviewers) and their interviewers completed the Clinical Data Form which assesses adaptive functioning and clinical information. Both interviews converged strongly with patient-reports, with no significant differences in validity of the interviews in measuring global and specific domains of adaptive functioning variables. Findings suggest that CDIs provide adaptive functioning data comparable to SCIDs (often considered “gold standard” for assessment but difficult to use in practice) and have important implications for bridging the research-practice gap. By incorporating clinicians’ everyday methods, CDIs yield information that is psychometrically sound for empirical investigation, diagnostically practical, and clinically meaningful and valid. Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.