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.
RCT Entities:
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.
Authors: Michael J Stirratt; Jacqueline Dunbar-Jacob; Heidi M Crane; Jane M Simoni; Susan Czajkowski; Marisa E Hilliard; James E Aikens; Christine M Hunter; Dawn I Velligan; Kristen Huntley; Gbenga Ogedegbe; Cynthia S Rand; Eleanor Schron; Wendy J Nilsen Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Curtis Dolezal; Stephanie L Marhefka; E Karina Santamaria; Cheng-Shiun Leu; Elizabeth Brackis-Cott; Claude Ann Mellins Journal: Arch Sex Behav Date: 2011-05-21
Authors: Dean G Kilpatrick; Heidi S Resnick; Melissa E Milanak; Mark W Miller; Katherine M Keyes; Matthew J Friedman Journal: J Trauma Stress Date: 2013-10
Authors: Lizabeth A Goldstein; Mary Beth Connolly Gibbons; Sarah M Thompson; Kelli Scott; Laura Heintz; Patricia Green; Donald Thompson; Paul Crits-Christoph Journal: J Behav Health Serv Res Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 1.505
Authors: D B Herrick; A Nakhasi; B Nelson; S Rice; P A Abbott; A S Saber Tehrani; R E Rothman; H P Lehmann; D E Newman-Toker Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Alan G Nyitray; Jongphil Kim; Chiu-Hsieh Hsu; Mary Papenfuss; Luisa Villa; Eduardo Lazcano-Ponce; Anna R Giuliano Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2009-09-09 Impact factor: 4.897