OBJECTIVE: This study investigated whether the quality of results from video interviews is comparable with that of in-person interviews. METHODS: Interrater reliabilities for two video conference interview conditions were compared with those for in-person interviews with the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-Anchored Version and the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication, given to 72 forensic inpatients. The video conditions included in-person and remote interviewers. In the first condition, an in-person interviewer administered the instruments, with remote observation and scoring. The second condition entailed remote administration and an in-person observer. The third condition used an in-person interviewer and observer. RESULTS: Good to excellent reliabilities resulted from all conditions with intraclass correlations of .69 to .82. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that providers can expect remote interviews to provide clinical information similar to that obtained by in-person interviews.
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated whether the quality of results from video interviews is comparable with that of in-person interviews. METHODS: Interrater reliabilities for two video conference interview conditions were compared with those for in-person interviews with the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-Anchored Version and the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication, given to 72 forensic inpatients. The video conditions included in-person and remote interviewers. In the first condition, an in-person interviewer administered the instruments, with remote observation and scoring. The second condition entailed remote administration and an in-person observer. The third condition used an in-person interviewer and observer. RESULTS: Good to excellent reliabilities resulted from all conditions with intraclass correlations of .69 to .82. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that providers can expect remote interviews to provide clinical information similar to that obtained by in-person interviews.
Authors: Leonard E Egede; Christopher B Frueh; Lisa K Richardson; Ronald Acierno; Patrick D Mauldin; Rebecca G Knapp; Carl Lejuez Journal: Trials Date: 2009-04-20 Impact factor: 2.279