Eur Psychiatry 1997 ; 12:224-231 <0 Elsevier, Paris Original article The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). A short diagnostic structured interview: reliability and validity according to the CIDI Y Lecrubier', DV Sheehan", E Weiller', P Amorim.', I Bonora', K Harnett Sheehan", J Janavs-, GC Dunbar 3 " IINSERM U3D2. Hspttal de la Salpetriere, 47, boulevard de l'Hopital; 7565/ Paris Cedex 13, France; 2 University of South Florida College of Medicine. 35/5 E Fletcher Avenue, Tampa. FL, USA; JSmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals. Reigate, Surrey. UK (Received November 1996; accepted 10 March 1997) Summary -:- The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) is a shoo diagnostic structured interview (DSI) developed in.France and the United States toexplore 17 disorders according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM>-Ill-R diagnostic It tS fully to allow administration by non-special ized interviewers. In order to keep it short it focuses on the existence of current For each disorder, one or two screening questions rule out the diagnosis when answered negatively . Probes for severity,. or medically symptoms are not symptom-by-symptom. Two joint papers present the inter-rater and rehablh.ty of the MINI and the. validity Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) (this paper) and the Structured Clinical for DSM-m-R patients GOlOt paper) . Three-hundred and forty-six patients (2% psychiatric and 50 non-psychiatric) wen: the MIJ;U and the gold standard': Forty two were interviewed by two investigators and 42 interviewed subsequently within two were trained to use both instruments. The mean duration of the interview was 21 min with the MINI and for of the CIDI. Kappa coefficient, sensitivityand specificity were good or very good for all diagnoses with the exception anxiety (GAD) (kappa = 0.36), agoraphobia (sensitivity = 0.59) and bulimia (kappa = 0.53). Inter-rater and test-retest.rehablhty were good. The for were identified. The MINI provided reliable DSM-Ill-R diagnoses within a short nrne frame. The study permitted Improvements In the formulations for GAD and agoraphobia in the current DSM-IV version of the MINI . structured diagnostic Interview I psychiatric diagnosis I MINI INTRODUCTION Although the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-IV and the Manual of International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD)-IO are reli- able diagnostic systems (Spitzer et al, 1979; Man- nuzza et al, 1989; Sartorius et al, 1993), there is still substantial disagreement among raters when diagnoses are based on an open clinicaI interview (Kutchins and Kirk, 1986). Clinicians often make an intuitive diagnosis without checking all of the diagnostic criteria. When they do use the DSM-IV "Current affiliation: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Wallingford. cr, USA. or lCD-10, their interpretation of the criteria and of the qualitative clinical content often depends on their own clinical experience and expertise. The order used to explore different criteria varies among clinicians and, for a single clinician, depends on the patient's presentation and com- plaints . The information collected also varies according to how the questions are asked. Ques- tions about the onset, the stability, and the disabil- ity associated with a specific symptom, can be vague or precise; "Do you sleep well? " versus "During the last 2 weeks, did you have problems falling asleep almost every day?"