Objective: The contemporary methodology in obtaining psychopathological information relies almost exclusively
on the use of structured questionnaires and interview schedules. These interviews yield high interrater reliability and
reduce cost. The assessments of anomalous self-experience and of mental status (disorders of experience and expression)
are often considered as “soft”, “subjective” and hence unreliable. In spite of the advantages of the structured interviews,
concerns have been raised about the epistemological coherence and the validity of the structured interviews.
To examine the interrater congruens between experienced clinicians with a semi structured, phenomenologically
oriented psychopathological interview assessing anomalous self-experience and mental status.
Method: Seventeen inpatients were interviewed by one of the raters, with both raters were present. The interview
comprised of a thorough psychosocial history and the EASE–scale.
Results: The interater-congruens for the total EASE-scale showed nearly perfect agreement with kappa=0.94.
The interrater-reliablility for the MSE assessment showed substantial to complete agreement with kappa above 0.81,
except for four items: “Withdrawn/shy” (kappa=0.77), “Suspicious, guarded and hostile” (kappa=0.77), “Raport insecure
and anxious” (kappa=0.76), “Restless” (kappa=0.64).
Conclusions: High interrater-congruens can be achieved for the assessment of anomalous self-experience and
mental status in the context of conversational, phenomenological-oriented semi-structured interview.
Limitations: The major limitation of the study is a relatively small sample size, conditioned by the time-consuming
nature of the individual interviews. Second, we should have included a measurement of reliability in a less experiencedrecently
EASE-introduced rater, since it is that kind of researchers that are typically enrolled for the empirical data
collections.