What is it about?
This paper describes the development of a new, clinical interview for moral injury: the CIMI (Clinical Interview for Moral Injury). While many questionnaires are available to assess moral injury in different populations, an interview was lacking that allowed patients to describe their morally injurious experiences and consequent psychosocial functioning in their own words. The interview was developed and refined based on existing diagnostic questions, consultation with international experts, and evaluation by patients and therapists. This version of the interview focuses on military veterans especially and hence is called the 'CIMI-M'.
Featured Image
Photo by LinkedIn Sales Solutions on Unsplash
Why is it important?
Questionnaires are a good way to assess potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs) and their psychosocial outcomes (moral injury) but they commonly require patients to 'tick a box'. Moral injury may not be easy to discuss. In addition, each patient's moral injury story is different. This interview allows patients and therapists to have a personalized, sensitive conversation about what the patient's moral injury entails. In addition, the interview yields valuable information for case conceptualization.
Perspectives
We're pleased that this interview is now widely available. We were keen to develop an interview that encompasses different theoretical perspectives on the development and maintenance of moral injury. Our patients are positive about this interview and we hope it will be a useful instrument for assessing moral injury in clinical care. You can find the interview itself as an attachment to the paper or find it at https://arq.org/sites/default/files/2026-10/CIMI-M.pdf. Have you used it? We'd be happy to hear what you think!
Prof. dr. Jackie June ter Heide
ARQ Centrum'45 and Utrecht University
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Mapping moral injury: Development and feasibility of the Clinical Interview for Moral Injury—military version (CIMI-M), PLOS One, September 2026, PLOS,
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0359553.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page







