Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Email this article to a Colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Articles & Searches Download to citation manager Articles by Wolford, G. Articles by Jankowski, M. K. PubMed Citation Articles by Wolford, G. Articles by Jankowski, M. K. Needs Assessment Other Health Services Issues Computers, Telecommunications

A Clinical Trial Comparing Interviewer and Computer-Assisted Assessment Among Clients With Severe Mental Illness

Dr. Wolford is affiliated with the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, 6207 Moore Hall, Hanover, NH 03755 (e-mail: wolford{at}dartmouth.edu). Dr. Rosenberg, Ms. Rosenberg, and Dr. Jankowski are with the Department of Psychiatry, Dartmouth Medical School, Lebanon, New Hampshire. Dr. Swartz and Dr. Swanson are with the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. At the time this study was conducted, until her death in 2006, Dr. Butterfield was with the Department of Veterans Affairs Mid-Atlantic Region Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Durham, and with the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Duke University Medical Center, Durham.

OBJECTIVE: Demographic, behavioral, and diagnostic information should routinely be collected from clients with severe mental illness, and data gathering should employ the most efficient techniques available. Surveys are increasingly conducted via Web-based computer-assisted interviewing (CAI), but this technique is not well validated for patients with severe mental illness. A randomized clinical trial of 245 clients was carried out to compare face-to face and computer-assisted interviewing (233 clients completed two surveys). METHODS: Self-report data were collected on demographic characteristics, substance abuse, risk behaviors for blood-borne diseases, trauma history, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Each client was assessed twice and randomly assigned to one of the four possible combinations of interviewer and computer (computer and computer, N=53; computer and interviewer, N=56; interviewer and computer, N=59; and interviewer and interviewer, N=65). The two formats were compared on feasibility, client preference, cost, reliability, convergent validity, and criterion validity. RESULTS: This study demonstrated the feasibility of CAI across a variety of inpatient and outpatient settings. All participants who began the CAI process completed the interview and responded to over 95% of the survey items. Participants liked using the computers as well as they liked face-to-face interviews, and they completed the CAI as quickly. CAI produced data as reliable and valid as face-to-face interviews produced and was less expensive, and results were available more quickly. The two formats were similar in criterion validity. CONCLUSIONS: CAI appears to be a viable technology for gathering clinical data from the population with severe mental illness and for transforming such information into a useful, quickly accessible form to aid in clinical decision making.

Get information about faster international access.

Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2008 American Psychiatric Association. All rights reserved.

Home | Search | Current Issue | Past Issues | Subscribe | All APPI Journals | Help | Contact Us