Assessment administration and interpretation

Across the manuals, the shared expectation is that therapists or trained staff can administer, support, and interpret study assessments in a way that serves eligibility, safety, and outcome monitoring. They all emphasise knowing the timing and purpose of measures across screening, dosing, baseline, and follow-up, and several explicitly link assessment findings to clinical review or monitoring when safety-relevant responses or distress emerge. The manuals also converge on familiarity with a mix of clinician-rated and self-report tools, including structured psychiatric interviews, symptom ratings, and measures of subjective or wellbeing outcomes. Common examples across the extracts include C-SSRS, CGI, GAD-7, WHOQOL-BREF, WEMWBS, and 5D-ASC, with some protocols also naming MEQ and other trial-specific scales. One manual additionally notes the need to document responses accurately and to support qualitative interviews and integration discussions. They differ mainly in the specific instruments and the level of direct responsibility assigned. The depression and OCD protocols focus on disorder-specific and trial-specific measures, such as MADRS, SHAPS, YBOCS, PHQ-9, and TAQ or blinding integrity checks, while the LSD trial assigns treating therapists direct responsibility for clinician-rated IDS-C scoring. The alcohol use disorder protocol is broader and more process-oriented, stressing screening, baseline verification, repeated measurement, and capture of alcohol use and subjective effects, rather than naming a detailed clinician-rating battery.