Bipolar disorders · 2010
The interactive computer interview for mania.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Reilly-Harrington Noreen A, DeBonis Daniel, Leon Andrew C, Sylvia Louisa, Perlis Roy, Lewis Daniel, Sachs Gary S
Аннотация
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.
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.