BACKGROUND: Interactive voice response (IVR) technology integrates touch-tone telephones with computer-automated data processing. IVR offers a convenient, efficient method for remote collection of self-report data. METHODS: Twenty-six subjects recruited from an outpatient alcohol treatment center completed IVR and paper/pencil versions of a demographic and drinking history questionnaire, Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale, Drinker Inventory of Consequences, Obsessive-Compulsive Drinking Scale, Alcohol Dependence Scale, and two numerical rating scales of craving and desire to drink during the prior week. Administration of the instruments in both formats was repeated 1 week later. The order of administration method was counterbalanced between subjects and reversed across data collection sessions. Scale and subscale scores from both methods were correlated within sessions. Test-retest correlations were also calculated for each method. A criterion of alpha = 0.01 was used to control type I statistical error. RESULTS: Intermethod correlations within each session were significant for all of the instruments administered. Test-retest correlations for both methods were also significant, except for the numerical ratings. Scores on the Alcohol Dependence Scale obtained via IVR were significantly lower than those collected by paper/pencil. Other differences between the data collection methods or across the sessions were inconsistent. The average IVR call length was 34 min and 23 sec. Paper/pencil forms required an average of 18 min and 38 sec to complete and an additional 10 min and 17 sec for data entry. CONCLUSIONS: IVR technology provides a convenient alternative to collecting self-report measures of treatment outcomes. Both paper/pencil and IVR assessments provide highly convergent data and demonstrate good test-retest reliability. Alcohol Dependence Scale score differences between methods highlight special considerations for IVR adaptation of existing paper/pencil instruments. Benefits of IVR include procedural standardization, automatic data scoring, direct electronic storage, and remote accessibility from multiple locations.
BACKGROUND: Interactive voice response (IVR) technology integrates touch-tone telephones with computer-automated data processing. IVR offers a convenient, efficient method for remote collection of self-report data. METHODS: Twenty-six subjects recruited from an outpatientalcohol treatment center completed IVR and paper/pencil versions of a demographic and drinking history questionnaire, Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale, Drinker Inventory of Consequences, Obsessive-Compulsive Drinking Scale, Alcohol Dependence Scale, and two numerical rating scales of craving and desire to drink during the prior week. Administration of the instruments in both formats was repeated 1 week later. The order of administration method was counterbalanced between subjects and reversed across data collection sessions. Scale and subscale scores from both methods were correlated within sessions. Test-retest correlations were also calculated for each method. A criterion of alpha = 0.01 was used to control type I statistical error. RESULTS: Intermethod correlations within each session were significant for all of the instruments administered. Test-retest correlations for both methods were also significant, except for the numerical ratings. Scores on the Alcohol Dependence Scale obtained via IVR were significantly lower than those collected by paper/pencil. Other differences between the data collection methods or across the sessions were inconsistent. The average IVR call length was 34 min and 23 sec. Paper/pencil forms required an average of 18 min and 38 sec to complete and an additional 10 min and 17 sec for data entry. CONCLUSIONS: IVR technology provides a convenient alternative to collecting self-report measures of treatment outcomes. Both paper/pencil and IVR assessments provide highly convergent data and demonstrate good test-retest reliability. Alcohol Dependence Scale score differences between methods highlight special considerations for IVR adaptation of existing paper/pencil instruments. Benefits of IVR include procedural standardization, automatic data scoring, direct electronic storage, and remote accessibility from multiple locations.
Authors: Anne H Berman; Ramesh Farzanfar; Marianne Kristiansson; Per Carlbring; Robert H Friedman Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2010-08-19 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Brent A Moore; Frank D Buono; Destiny M B Printz; Daniel P Lloyd; David A Fiellin; Christopher J Cutter; Richard S Schottenfeld; Declan T Barry Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Gail L Rose; Joan M Skelly; Gary J Badger; Charles D Maclean; Megan P Malgeri; John E Helzer Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 2.582
Authors: Gail D'Onofrio; David A Fiellin; Michael V Pantalon; Marek C Chawarski; Patricia H Owens; Linda C Degutis; Susan H Busch; Steven L Bernstein; Patrick G O'Connor Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2012-03-28 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Brent A Moore; Tera Fazzino; Declan T Barry; David A Fiellin; Christopher J Cutter; Richard S Schottenfeld; Samuel A Ball Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2013-01-30
Authors: James H Willig; Marc Krawitz; Anantachai Panjamapirom; Midge N Ray; Christa R Nevin; Thomas M English; Mark P Cohen; Eta S Berner Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2013-01-23 Impact factor: 4.460