Talk:Psychiatric interview

Medical student

I am a medical student editing this article for an assignment at school. The article makes a decent start and summarizes the topic well, but only has 1 section. My plan is to reduce the lead and put the extra information into new sections. The current citations work and provide good information. I plan to refer to them and other works as well. The article is neutral and I plan to preserve that. I will do my best to reference medical sources and convey that information on Wikipedia in a way that avoids jargon and is congruent with a the encyclopedia format. MishatheKitty (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: 2025-26 TCOM WikiMed

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 March 2026 and 28 March 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MishatheKitty (article contribs). Peer reviewers: ABetrus.

— Assignment last updated by Butterchicken228 (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Outline of work plan

- shorten lead- article began with no sections, just an extensive "lead"

- restructure information from existing lead into following sections: Goal of interview, confounding factors (or some other name for factors that may affect the info gathered in the interview)

- beef up the sections created from information in the lead

- add a section on Parts of an interview

- possibly add a section on Different interview strategies

- possibly add a section on Critiques of the interview

- look for more sources

- add citations for uncited sentences in the article

MishatheKitty (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Peer Review

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • The lead has been updated and moved from sandbox to article
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, good description of overall process with references attached.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • It does not contain a lot of information outside of what it is in general- could consider adding a few sentences to give more description of the article as a whole such as a brief summary of the sections. This could look something like adding a general description and that the interview process has steps involved but can contain overall challenges and other considerations and then potentially list a couple.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • no
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • It is very concise so could consider adding even a little bit more information!

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • yes the content expands on already present sections
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • yes and references are included
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • all content looks to belong and be complete
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • it addressed potential challenges in subjective interviews when bias may be involved with certain education levels and when patient vs practitioner have a language difference

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • yes it has an overall neutral tone
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • no
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • no
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • no

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • It looks like all references are from established publications/journals or medical handbooks. A few of the references listed in the bibliography page are not listed in the actual article so could consider using these if needed!
• Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
  • yes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • all sources are directly related to the topic
• Are the sources current?
  • yes all are listed within last 10-15 years
• Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
  • it looks like all are listed as peer reviewed journals and medical handbooks. No random websites listed
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • yes and it seems all have public access

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • The content is overall well written and clear. Information added to the existing sections contains added content that is not simply repeated. References were also added from reputable sources. It is easy to read and follow and I think readers will especially appreciate the added links to terms that may be unfamiliar to the lay person reading them.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • In the section under reliability, it states "Open-ended question ("Tell me about your sleep.") have been shown to have better validity but less reliability than closed-ended questions("Do you have sleeping difficulties?")" --> This has a few grammatical issues and a potential rewrite could be " Open-ended questions (e.g., “Tell me about your sleep”) have been shown to demonstrate greater validity but lower reliability compared with closed-ended questions (e.g., “Do you have difficulty sleeping?”)." This includes "e.g." when referencing exact quotes as an example and the flow is a little easier to follow. This sentence also does not have a reference attached which could be useful as it states that this concept has "been shown" but does not state or list where it has been shown.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • yes

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • Overall, it looks like the article is complete. I noticed in the sandbox, there is a section including the "history of psychiatric interview" which could be a good section of information to add to show how this concept and practice started and where it is today.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • It is a comprehensive article that includes an abundance of information. The added content further expanded and clarified the various sections.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • The history of the interview could be a strong section to add especially for those truly interested in this topic. The lead to the article could be expanded just a little to provide context of the entire article including the sections that are discussed. The grammar pieces were noted above which could also improve the flow. Overall looks good!

ABetrus (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Comprehensive?

Hello former 4th year medical students. You are probably busy PGY-1 interns at this point. Daniel Carlat has published a handbook on this subject titled The Psychiatric Interview, which he says does not count as a textbook despite it being over 300 pages. I'll quote him: "There are a number of interviewing textbooks already available (Morrison, 2014; Othmer, 2001; Shea, 1998), my favorite being Shea’s Psychiatric Interviewing: The Art of Understanding." We don't yet cite any of them, despite these sources appearing to be the most authoritative in the field. Shea's 2016 book is over 800 pages. ABetrus and MishatheKitty, do you think it might be possible that this article, given the rich literature on the subject that is not yet cited, might be able to be significantly expanded and improved? Why couldn't it be expanded to 5,000 words, for example? That is a reasonable potential size given the guideline for articles. It's currently around 1400 words. I hope to hear back from you here. Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2026 (UTC)