OBJECTIVE: To compare a self administered computerised assessment of neurotic psychiatric disorder (psychiatric morbidity) with an identical assessment administered by a human interviewer. In particular, to discover whether a computerised assessment overestimates or underestimates the prevalence of psychiatric morbidity in relation to a human interviewer. SETTING:A health centre in south east London, UK. SUBJECTS:A non-consecutive series of health centre attenders. Complete data were available on 92 subjects. DESIGN: All subjects received both assessments on the same occasion but were randomised to receive either the computerised assessment first or the human interview first. RESULTS: The mean total score on the assessment was the same for both methods of administration; computer 8.77 v human 8.69 (95% confidence interval for difference -0.70, 0.87). The correlation between the human and interviewer assessments was 0.91. CONCLUSION: Self administered computerised assessments are valid, unbiased measures of psychiatric morbidity. In addition to their use as a research tool, they have potential uses in primary care including screening for psychiatric morbidity and in forming the basis for clinical guidelines.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare a self administered computerised assessment of neurotic psychiatric disorder (psychiatric morbidity) with an identical assessment administered by a human interviewer. In particular, to discover whether a computerised assessment overestimates or underestimates the prevalence of psychiatric morbidity in relation to a human interviewer. SETTING: A health centre in south east London, UK. SUBJECTS: A non-consecutive series of health centre attenders. Complete data were available on 92 subjects. DESIGN: All subjects received both assessments on the same occasion but were randomised to receive either the computerised assessment first or the human interview first. RESULTS: The mean total score on the assessment was the same for both methods of administration; computer 8.77 v human 8.69 (95% confidence interval for difference -0.70, 0.87). The correlation between the human and interviewer assessments was 0.91. CONCLUSION: Self administered computerised assessments are valid, unbiased measures of psychiatric morbidity. In addition to their use as a research tool, they have potential uses in primary care including screening for psychiatric morbidity and in forming the basis for clinical guidelines.
Authors: John Cape; Connie Geyer; Chris Barker; Nancy Pistrang; Marta Buszewicz; Christopher Dowrick; Peter Salmon Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2010-10-11 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Hollie V Thomas; Glyn Lewis; Margaret Watson; Truda Bell; Ita Lyons; Keith Lloyd; Scott Weich; Deborah Sharp Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Helen Baxter; Rachel Winder; Melanie Chalder; Christine Wright; Sofie Sherlock; Anne Haase; Nicola J Wiles; Alan A Montgomery; Adrian H Taylor; Ken R Fox; Debbie A Lawlor; Tim J Peters; Deborah J Sharp; John Campbell; Glyn Lewis Journal: Trials Date: 2010-11-12 Impact factor: 2.279