Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Email this article to a Colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Articles & Searches Download to citation manager Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Articles by Clarke, D. M. Articles by McKenzie, D. P. Search for Related Content PubMed Citation Articles by Clarke, D. M. Articles by McKenzie, D. P. General Topics in Psychiatry Syndromes Secondary to General Medical Disorders

Monash Interview for Liaison Psychiatry (MILP)

Development, Reliability, and Procedural Validity

Received January 16, 1998; accepted January 30, 1998. From the Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry Research Unit, Monash University Department of Psychological Medicine, Monash Medical Centre, Melbourne, Australia. Dr. Herrman is from the University of Melbourne, and Hospital and Community Psychiatry Service, St. Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne. Address reprint requests to Dr. Clarke, Monash University, Department of Psychological Medicine, Monash Medical Centre, 246 Clayton Road, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia. e-mail: david.clarke{at}med.monash.edu.au

The Monash Interview for Liaison Psychiatry (MILP) is a structured interview designed for use with patients who have physical and psychiatric comorbidity. Linked to a computerized diagnostic algorithm, the MILP is able to establish diagnoses according to DSM-III-R, International Classification of Diseases–10th Edition (ICD–10), and DSM-IV criteria, as well as a range of other criteria relevant to consultation-liaison psychiatry. Interrater reliability was assessed with 54 joint interviews, in which the mean kappa for agreement of items was 0.83 and of diagnoses was 0.68. Comparative procedural validity was tested against DSM-III-R decision-tree diagnoses, ICD–10 checklist diagnoses, and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R interview diagnoses on another sample of 54 patients. Mean kappas for these comparisons were 0.61, 0.56, and 0.31, respectively. As predicted, the MILP more fully covered the spectrum of somatizing disorders, compared with the other methods for establishing diagnoses.

Key Words: Monash Interview • Diagnosis • Interview • Patient Assessment

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. C. Smith, D. M. Clarke, D. Handrinos, A. Dunsis, and D. P. McKenzie Consultation-Liaison Psychiatrists' Management of Somatoform Disorders Psychosomatics, December 1, 2000; 41(6): 481 - 489. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				D. M. Clarke, A. J. Mackinnon, G. C. Smith, D. P. McKenzie, and H. E. Herrman Dimensions of Psychopathology in the Medically Ill: A Latent Trait Analysis Psychosomatics, October 1, 2000; 41(5): 418 - 425. [Abstract] [Full Text]

Get information about faster international access.

Privacy Policy

Copyright © 1998 Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine. All rights reserved.

Home | Search | Current Issue | Past Issues | Subscribe | All APPI Journals | Help | Contact Us