OBJECTIVES: The Interactive Computer Interview for Mania (ICI-M) is a computer-administered interview that presents probes to assess symptom severity and utilizes a scoring algorithm to select follow-up questions and rate subject responses in accordance with rating scale anchor points. The current study examines the acceptability, feasibility, and reliability of the ICI-M as a potential method for evaluating the performance of human raters. METHODS: Participants with a diagnosis of bipolar I or II disorder completed both a live interview of the Young Mania Rating Scale with a human rater (LR) and the ICI-M. A panel of three expert raters reviewed each videotaped LR and assigned a consensus rating (CR). Participants completed a modified version of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire to assess each method. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.91 between the ICI-M and CR and 0.97 between the LR and CR (n = 100), providing empirical support for the inter-rater reliability of each approach. Coefficient alphas indicated comparable internal consistency reliability: ICI-M = 0.82, LR = 0.83, and CR = 0.84. The ICI-M was significantly more sensitive in detecting symptomatology than the LR (p < 0.001) and the CR (p < 0.001), and resulted in significantly higher ratings than CR on mood, speech, psychotic content, and disruptive-aggressive behavior. While participants endorsed significantly higher overall satisfaction with LR, no significant differences emerged between ICI-M and LR regarding willingness to participate again or ability to understand the questions. CONCLUSIONS: The ICI-M is a well-accepted and reliable method for assessing manic symptoms. The ICI-M is a tool with adequate sensitivity to elicit symptoms and rate severity and is recommended as a tool to monitor and improve rater performance, not as a replacement of a human rater. (c) 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
OBJECTIVES: The Interactive Computer Interview for Mania (ICI-M) is a computer-administered interview that presents probes to assess symptom severity and utilizes a scoring algorithm to select follow-up questions and rate subject responses in accordance with rating scale anchor points. The current study examines the acceptability, feasibility, and reliability of the ICI-M as a potential method for evaluating the performance of human raters. METHODS:Participants with a diagnosis of bipolar I or II disorder completed both a live interview of the Young Mania Rating Scale with a human rater (LR) and the ICI-M. A panel of three expert raters reviewed each videotaped LR and assigned a consensus rating (CR). Participants completed a modified version of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire to assess each method. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.91 between the ICI-M and CR and 0.97 between the LR and CR (n = 100), providing empirical support for the inter-rater reliability of each approach. Coefficient alphas indicated comparable internal consistency reliability: ICI-M = 0.82, LR = 0.83, and CR = 0.84. The ICI-M was significantly more sensitive in detecting symptomatology than the LR (p < 0.001) and the CR (p < 0.001), and resulted in significantly higher ratings than CR on mood, speech, psychotic content, and disruptive-aggressive behavior. While participants endorsed significantly higher overall satisfaction with LR, no significant differences emerged between ICI-M and LR regarding willingness to participate again or ability to understand the questions. CONCLUSIONS: The ICI-M is a well-accepted and reliable method for assessing manic symptoms. The ICI-M is a tool with adequate sensitivity to elicit symptoms and rate severity and is recommended as a tool to monitor and improve rater performance, not as a replacement of a human rater. (c) 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
Authors: David C Rettew; Alicia Doyle Lynch; Thomas M Achenbach; Levent Dumenci; Masha Y Ivanova Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Joseph M Cerimele; Simon B Goldberg; Christopher J Miller; Stephen W Gabrielson; John C Fortney Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2019-02-05 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Maria Faurholt-Jepsen; Klaus Munkholm; Mads Frost; Jakob E Bardram; Lars Vedel Kessing Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2016-01-15 Impact factor: 3.630