Diagnosing Comorbid Psychiatric Disorders in Substance Abusers: Validity of the Spanish Versions of the Psychiatric Research Interview for Substance and Mental Disorders and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV

OBJECTIVE: The authors’ goal was to assess the validity of DSM-IV diagnoses obtained with the Spanish versions of the Psychiatric Research Interview for Substance and Mental Disorders (PRISM) and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) compared with the longitudinal, expert, all data (LEAD) procedure in a group of substance abusers. METHOD: A total of 105 substance abusers recruited at a drug abuse treatment center in Barcelona, Spain, were assessed. The PRISM and SCID were administered blindly by independent research interviewers. LEAD diagnoses were made by two senior psychiatrists who were blind to PRISM and SCID diagnoses. The kappa statistic was used to measure concordance between the LEAD procedure and the PRISM and SCID. RESULTS: Affective and anxiety disorders were diagnosed more frequently by the PRISM and SCID than by the LEAD procedure. Use of the PRISM resulted in more diagnoses of substance-induced depression, and use of the SCID resulted in more diagnoses of primary major depression than the LEAD procedure. Kappas between the LEAD procedure and the PRISM in current major depression, past substance-induced depression, and borderline personality disorder were better than those obtained between the LEAD procedure and the SCID. The concordance among the three methods for diagnoses of current dependence disorders was good or excellent for alcohol, anxiolytic, cocaine, and heroin dependence and fair for cannabis dependence. Abuse diagnoses showed poor concordance. CONCLUSIONS: Using the LEAD procedure as a “gold standard,” the authors conclude that the Spanish version of the PRISM seems to be a better instrument than the Spanish version of the SCID for diagnosing major depression and borderline personality disorders in substance abusers.