Assessments of infants usually begin with the parents present because very young children may be frightened by the interview situation; the interview with the parents present also allows the clinician to assess the parent-infant interaction. Infants may be referred for a variety of reasons, including high levels of irritability, difficulty being consoled, eating disturbances, poor weight gain, sleep disturbances, withdrawn behavior, lack of engagement in play, and developmental delay. The clinician assesses areas of functioning that include motor development, activity level, verbal communication, ability to engage in play, problem-solving skills, adaptation to daily routines, relationships, and social responsiveness.

The child’s developmental level of functioning is determined by combining observations made during the interview with standardized developmental measures. Observations of play reveal a child’s developmental level and reflect the child’s emotional state and preoccupations. The examiner can interact with an infant age 18 months or younger in a playful manner by using such games as peek-a-boo. Children between the ages of 18 months and 3 years can be observed in a playroom. Children ages 2 years or older may exhibit symbolic play with toys, revealing more in this mode than through conversation. The use of puppets and dolls with children younger than 6 years of age is often an effective way to elicit information, especially if questions are directed to the dolls rather than to the child.

Some school-age children are at ease when conversing with an adult; others are hampered by fear, anxiety, poor verbal skills, or oppositional behavior. School-age children can usually tolerate a 45-minute session. The room should be sufficiently spacious for
the child to move around but not so large as to reduce intimate contact between the examiner and the child. Part of the interview can be reserved for unstructured play, and various toys can be made available to capture the child’s interest and to elicit themes and feelings. Children in lower grades may be more interested in the toys in the room, whereas by the sixth grade, children may be more comfortable with the interview process and less likely to show spontaneous play.

The initial part of the interview explores the child’s understanding of the reasons for the meeting. The clinician should confirm that the interview was not set up because the child is “in trouble” or as a punishment for “bad” behavior. Techniques that can facilitate disclosure of feelings include asking the child to draw peers, family members, a house, or anything else that comes to mind. The child can then be questioned about the drawings. Children may be asked to reveal three wishes, to describe the best and worst events of their lives, and to name a favorite person to be stranded with on a desert island. Games such as Donald W. Winnicott’s “squiggle,” in which the examiner draws a curved line and then the child and the examiner take turns continuing the drawing, may facilitate conversation.

Questions that are partially open-ended with some multiple choices may elicit the most complete answers from school-age children. Simple, closed (yes or no) questions may not elicit sufficient information, and completely open-ended questions can overwhelm a school-age child who cannot construct a chronological narrative. These techniques often result in a shoulder shrug from the child. The use of indirect commentary—such as, “I once knew a child who felt very sad when he moved away from all his friends”—is helpful, although the clinician must be careful not to lead the child into confirming what the child thinks the clinician wants to hear. School-age children respond well to clinicians who help them compare moods or feelings by asking them to rate feelings on a scale of 1 to 10.

Adolescents usually have distinct ideas about why the evaluation was initiated and can usually give a chronological account of the recent events leading to the evaluation, although some may disagree with the need for the evaluation. The clinician should clearly communicate the value of hearing the story from an adolescent’s point of view and must be careful to reserve judgment and not assign blame. Adolescents may be concerned about confidentiality, and clinicians can assure them that permission will be requested from them before any specific information is shared with parents, except situations involving danger to the adolescent or others, in which case confidentiality must be sacrificed. Adolescents can be approached in an open-ended manner; however, when silences occur during the interview, the clinician should attempt to reengage the patient. Clinicians can explore what the adolescent believes the outcome of the evaluation will be (change of school, hospitalization, removal from home, removal of privileges).

Some adolescents approach the interview with apprehension or hostility but open up when it becomes evident that the clinician is neither punitive nor judgmental. Clinicians must be aware of their responses to adolescents’ behavior (countertransference) and stay focused on the therapeutic process even in the face of defiant, angry, or difficult teenagers. Clinicians should set appropriate limits and should postpone or discontinue an interview if they feel threatened or if patients become destructive to property or engage in self-injurious behavior. Every interview should include an exploration of suicidal thoughts, assaultive behavior, psychotic symptoms, substance use, and knowledge of safe sexual practices along with a sexual history. Once rapport has been established, many adolescents appreciate the opportunity to tell their side of the story and may reveal things that they have not disclosed to anyone else.

An interview with parents and the patient may take place first or may occur later in the evaluation. Sometimes, an interview with the entire family, including siblings, can be enlightening. The purpose is to observe the attitudes and behavior of the parents toward the patient and the responses of the children to their parents. The clinician’s job is to maintain a nonthreatening atmosphere in which each member of the family can speak freely without feeling that the clinician is taking sides with any particular member. Although child psychiatrists generally function as advocates for the child, the clinician must validate each family member’s feelings in this setting because lack of communication often contributes to the patient’s problems.

The interview with the patient’s parents or caretakers is necessary to get a chronological picture of the child’s growth and development. A thorough developmental history and details of any stressors or important events that have influenced the child’s development must be elicited. The parents’ view of the family dynamics, their marital history, and their own emotional adjustment are also elicited. The family’s psychiatric history and the upbringing of the parents are pertinent. Parents are usually the best informants about the child’s early development and previous psychiatric and medical illnesses. They may be better able to provide an accurate chronology of past evaluations and treatment. In some cases, especially with older children and adolescents, the parents may be unaware of significant current symptoms or social difficulties of the child. Clinicians elicit the parents’ formulation of the causes and nature of their child’s problems and ask about expectations about the current assessment.

To understand the clinical problems to be evaluated, the clinician must first identify the patient and keep in mind the family constellation surrounding the child. The clinician must also pay attention to the source of the referral—that is, whether it is the child’s family, school, or another agency—because this influences the family’s attitude toward the evaluation. Finally, many informants contribute to the child’s evaluation, and each must be identified to gain insight into the child’s functioning in different settings.

A comprehensive history contains information about the child’s current and past functioning from the child’s report, from clinical and structured interviews with the parents, and from information from teachers and previous treating clinicians. The chief complaint and the history of the present illness are generally obtained from both the child and the parents. Naturally, the child will articulate the situation according to his or her developmental level. The developmental history is more accurately obtained from the parents. Psychiatric and medical histories, current physical examination findings, and immunization histories can be augmented with reports from psychiatrists and pediatricians who have treated the child. The child’s report is critical in understanding the current situation regarding peer relationships and adjustment to school. Adolescents are the best informants regarding their knowledge of safe sexual practices, drug or alcohol use, and suicidal ideation. The family’s psychiatric and social histories and family function are best obtained from the parents.