In each of the previous examples, it would be important for you to gently point out the inconsistency and give the interviewee an opportunity to clarify these perceived contradictions.
For example: On CAPS-5 item 19 (symptom E5), the interviewee reports that his concentration is unimpaired, but he seems distracted throughout the interview. You might say, “You indicated that you don’t have any problems with concentration, but I’ve noticed that there have been several times during this interview when I needed to repeat the question to you. Do you have problems like that at other times?”
If you receive information that contradicts the interviewee’s self-report, you should not base your scores on this contradictory information without first seeking clarifying information from the interviewee.
Reminder:
CAPS ratings should be based on all of the data gathered before, during, and after the interview (to include behavioral observations), rather just on the specific verbalized responses the subject gives. Where you see discrepancies, you can point them out and attempt to clarify or resolve them, but you must use judgment and make a rating with all available information.
In instances in which the interviewee is either unwilling or unable to help reconcile these discrepancies, interviewers may have less confidence in the interviewee's answer to the CAPS-5 questions. Less confidence should directly translate to a higher global validity rating (Item 26: global validity) by the interviewer at the end of the CAPS-5. [Remember that on item 26, scores range from 0 = Excellent, no reasons to suspect invalid responses to 4 = Invalid responses, severely impaired mental status or possible deliberate “faking bad” or “faking good”, so higher responses on item 26 are associated with less confidence in validity.]
For example: You observe that the interviewee has provided inconsistent responses across measures. This lowers your confidence in the interview, thus increasing your global validity rating.