The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×
LetterFull Access

Use of the BASIS-32

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.49.12.1621-a

To the Editor: The article by Klinkenberg and associates (1) in the September 1998 issue, entitled "Reliability and Validity of the Interview and Self-Report Versions of the BASIS-32," was interesting and informative. However, based on the description of the methods reported, I would like to note that the interview version of the BASIS-32 that the researchers employed does not conform to the interview version employed by my colleagues and me (2).

Our use of the BASIS-32 as a structured interview involves reading the questions to respondents, then showing them a "response card" with the same 0 to 4 rating scale that is used in the self-report version of the instrument. As described by Eisen (2), the interviewer reads the response choices and asks the patient to provide his or her rating for each item. This method maintains the BASIS-32 as an instrument assessing the patient's perspective on his or her symptoms and problems.

The methods described by Klinkenberg and associates appear to involve a clinician's assessment of the patient's symptom and problem difficulty. Thus the authors appear to be using a clinician version of the BASIS-32, rather than an interview version of a self-report measure. The lower levels of reliability found for this interview version are not surprising, as the clinician's judgment introduces another source of variance into the ratings.

Dr. Eisen is assistant director of the department of mental health services research at McLean Hospital and assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

References

1. Klinkenberg WD, Cho DW, Vieweg B: Reliability and validity of the interview and self-report versions of the BASIS-32. Psychiatric Services 49:1229-1231, 1998LinkGoogle Scholar

2. Eisen SV: Assessment of subjective distress by patients' self-report versus structured interview. Psychological Reports 76:35-39, 1995Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar