Web-based assessment of depression in patients treated in clinical practice: Reliability, validity, and patient acceptance

Journal of Clinical Psychiatry

Volumn 73, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 333-338

  Zimmerman, Mark ^a   Martinez, Jennifer H ^a  

^a BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AWARENESS; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEPRESSION; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; ONLINE ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOLOGIC ASSESSMENT; RATING SCALE; RELIABILITY; SCORING SYSTEM; SELF REPORT; VALIDITY; WEB BROWSER;

EID: 84859153355     PISSN: 01606689     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4088/JCP.10m06519     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Trivedi MH, Rush AJ, Wisniewski SR, et al; STAR*D Study Team. Evaluation of outcomes with citalopram for depression using measurement-based care in STAR*D: implications for clinical practice. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(1):28-40. doi:10.176/api.ajp.163.1.28 PubMed (Pubitemid 43050100)
2. 2008 Physician Quality Reporting Initiative. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. US Department of Health and Human Services Web site. https://www.cms.gov/PQRS/2008/list.asp#TopOfPage. Accessed September 29, 2011.
3. Gilbody SM, House AO, Sheldon TA. Psychiatrists in the UK do not use outcomes measures: national survey. Br J Psychiatry. 2002;180(2): 101-103. doi:10.192/bjp.180.2.101 PubMed (Pubitemid 34142777)
4. Zimmerman M, McGlinchey JB. Why don't psychiatrists use scales to measure outcome when treating depressed patients? J Clin Psychiatry. 2008;69(12):1916-1919. doi:10.408/JCP.v69n1209 PubMed
5. Zimmerman M. Integrating the assessment methods of researchers in routine clinical practice: the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project. In: First MB, ed. Annual Review of Psychiatry. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, Inc; 2003:29-34.
6. Zimmerman M, Chelminski I, McGlinchey JB, et al. A Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale. Compr Psychiatry. 2008;49(2):131-140. doi:10.1016/j.compsych.207.10.06 PubMed
7. Zimmerman M, McGlinchey JB. Depressed patients' acceptability of the use of self-administered scales to measure outcome in clinical practice. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2008;20(3):125-129. PubMed (Pubitemid 352009282)
8. Zimmerman M, Posternak MA, Chelminski I. Using aself-report depression scale to identify remission in depressed outpatients. Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161(10):1911-1913. doi:10.176/api.ajp.161.10.191 PubMed (Pubitemid 39314688)
9. Emmelkamp PM. Technological innovations inclinical assessment and psychotherapy. Psychother Psychosom. 2005;74(6):336-343. doi:10.159/08780 PubMed (Pubitemid 41507282)
10. Cartreine JA, Ahern DK, Locke SE. A roadmap tocomputer-based psychotherapy in the United States. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2010;18(2):80-95. doi:10.3109/10673210370702 PubMed
11. Coles ME, Cook LM, Blake TR. Assessing obsessive compulsive symptoms and cognitions on the internet: evidence for the comparability of paper and Internet administration. Behav Res Ther. 2007;45(9): 2232-2240. doi:10.1016/j.brat.206. 12.09 PubMed (Pubitemid 47210946)
12. Buchanan T. Online assessment: desirable ordangerous? Prof Psychol Res Pr. 2002;33(2):148-154. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.3.2.148
13. Buchanan T. Internet-based questionnaire assessment: appropriate use in clinical contexts. Cogn Behav Ther. 2003;32(3):100-109. doi:10.1080/ 16506070310957 PubMed (Pubitemid 37080625)
14. McDonald A. The impact of individual differences on the equivalence of computer-based and paper-and-pencil educational assessments. Comput Educ. 2002;39(3):299-312. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(02)032-5
15. American Psychological Association. Guidelines for Computer-Based Tests and Interpretations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1986.
16. Webster J, Compeau D. Computer-assisted versus paper-and-pencil administration of questionnaires. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 1996;28(4):567-576. doi:10.3758/BF032054 (Pubitemid 126416718)
17. Barbeite F, Weiss E. Computer self-efficacy and anxiety scales for an internet sample: testing measurement equivalence of existing measures and development of new scales. Comput Human Behav. 2004;20(1):1-15. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(03)049-9
18. Cook IA, Balasubramani GK, Eng H, et al. Electronic source materials in clinical research: acceptability and validity of symptom self-rating in major depressive disorder. J Psychiatr Res. 2007;41(9):737-743. doi:10.1016/j. jpsychires.206.07.015 PubMed (Pubitemid 46659725)
19. Herrero J, Meneses J. Short web-based versions of the perceived stress (PSS) and Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression (CESD) Scales: a comparison to pencil and paper responses among internet users. Comput Human Behav. 2006;22(5):830-846. doi:10.1016/j.chb.204.03.07
20. Merten T, Ruch W. A comparison of computerized and conventional administration of the German versions of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and the Carroll Rating Scale for Depression. Pers Individ Dif. 1996;20(3):281-291. doi:10.1016/0191-869(95)0185-9 (Pubitemid 126164060)
21. Schulenberg S, Yutrzenka B. Equivalence of computerized and conventional versions of the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II). Curr Psychol. 2001;20(3):216-230. doi:10.107/s1214-01-108-1
22. Vallejo MA, Jordan CM, Diaz MI, et al. Psychological assessment via the internet: a reliability and validity study of online (vs paper-and-pencil) versions of the General Health Questionnaire-28 (GHQ-28) and the Symptoms Check-List-90-Revised (SCL-90-R). J Med Internet Res. 2007;9(1):e2. doi:10.2196/jmir.9.1.e2 PubMed (Pubitemid 47450402)
23. First MB, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, et al. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 1997.
24. Montgomery SA, Asberg M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry. 1979;134(4):382-389. doi:10.192/bjp.134.4.382 PubMed (Pubitemid 9136500)
25. Guy W. ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health; 1976.
26. Glaze R, Cox JL. Validation of a computerised version of the 10-item (self-rating) Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. J Affect Disord. 1991; 22(1-2):73-77. doi:10.1016/0165-0327(91)9086-8 PubMed
27. Kurt R, Bogner HR, Straton JB, et al. Computer-assisted assessment of depression and function in older primary care patients. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2004;73(2):165-171. doi:10.1016/S0169-2607(03)026-9 PubMed (Pubitemid 38134489)
28. Ogles BM, France CR, Lunnen KM, et al. Computerized depression screening and awareness. Community Ment Health J. 1998;34(1):27-38. doi:10.1023/A: 1018760128239 PubMed (Pubitemid 28177702)
29. Carlbring P, Brunt S, Bohman S, et al. Internet vspaper and pencil administration of questionnaires commonly used in panic/agoraphobia research. Comput Human Behav. 2007;23(3):1421-1434. doi:10.1016/j.chb.205.05.02 (Pubitemid 46073585)