This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (30)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

HANS H. STRUPP, Ph.D.; JOAN V. WILLIAMS, Ph.D.

AMA Arch Gen Psychiatry 1960;2(4):434-440.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

The use of the interview as a diagnostic technique continues in spite of the many questions raised about its reliability and validity. There is a subjective feeling of comfort and security to be had from seeing and talking with a person which persists even when the information gained, translated, and sorted into ratings, predictions, and the like, fails to correlate with other variables (Kelly and Fiske,³ 1951). Those who feel that the interview has little value state that in an unstructured situation there is too great a danger that the interviewer will be biased by his own needs and attitudes. Robinson and Cohen⁵ (1954) found reliable differences in the case reports of interns in clinical psychology which were related to the personality characteristics of the interns, and somewhat similar results were reported by Raines and Rohrer⁴ (1955) in a study of psychiatrists’ ratings of Naval . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Chapel Hill, N.C.

University of North Carolina School of Medicine.

Footnotes
Submitted for publication Oct. 2, 1959.

This study was made possible through the support of a research grant (M-2171) from the National Institute of Mental Health, U.S. Public Health Service.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?