Literature DB >> 20712753

The interactive computer interview for mania.

Noreen A Reilly-Harrington1, Daniel DeBonis, Andrew C Leon, Louisa Sylvia, Roy Perlis, Daniel Lewis, Gary S Sachs.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20712753      PMCID: PMC2925290          DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-5618.2010.00844.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bipolar Disord        ISSN: 1398-5647            Impact factor:   6.744


  21 in total

Review 1.  Validity of clinical trials of antidepressants.

Authors:  F M Quitkin; J G Rabkin; J Gerald; J M Davis; D F Klein
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 18.112

2.  Interview quality and signal detection in clinical trials.

Authors:  Kenneth A Kobak; Alan D Feiger; Joshua D Lipsitz
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 18.112

Review 3.  Why do clinical trials fail? The problem of measurement error in clinical trials: time to test new paradigms?

Authors:  Kenneth A Kobak; John M Kane; Michael E Thase; Andrew A Nierenberg
Journal:  J Clin Psychopharmacol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 3.153

Review 4.  Implications of clinical trial design on sample size requirements.

Authors:  Andrew C Leon
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2008-05-09       Impact factor: 9.306

5.  Sample size requirements for the comparison of two or more coefficients of inter-observer agreement.

Authors:  A Donner
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-05-30       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  More reliable outcome measures can reduce sample size requirements.

Authors:  A C Leon; P M Marzuk; L Portera
Journal:  Arch Gen Psychiatry       Date:  1995-10

7.  Does a placebo run-in or a placebo treatment cell affect the efficacy of antidepressant medications?

Authors:  M H Trivedi; H Rush
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 7.853

Review 8.  Placebos, drug effects, and study design: a clinician's guide.

Authors:  F M Quitkin
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 18.112

Review 9.  How should efficacy be evaluated in randomized clinical trials of treatments for depression?

Authors:  M E Thase
Journal:  J Clin Psychiatry       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.384

10.  Meta-analyses of agreement between diagnoses made from clinical evaluations and standardized diagnostic interviews.

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

View more
  2 in total

1.  Systematic Review of Symptom Assessment Measures for Use in Measurement-Based Care of Bipolar Disorders.

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

Review 2.  Electronic self-monitoring of mood using IT platforms in adult patients with bipolar disorder: A systematic review of the validity and evidence.

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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.