Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Outcome Assessment via Handheld Computer in Community Mental Health: Consumer Satisfaction and Reliability

  • Published:
The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Computerized administration of mental health-related questionnaires has become relatively common, but little research has explored this mode of assessment in “real-world” settings. In the current study, 200 consumers at a community mental health center completed the BASIS-24 via handheld computer as well as paper and pen. Scores on the computerized BASIS-24 were compared with scores on the paper BASIS-24. Consumers also completed a questionnaire which assessed their level of satisfaction with the computerized BASIS-24. Results indicated that the BASIS-24 administered via handheld computer was highly correlated with pen and paper administration of the measure and was generally acceptable to consumers. Administration of the BASIS-24 via handheld computer may allow for efficient and sustainable outcomes assessment, adaptable research infrastructure, and maximization of clinical impact in community mental health agencies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Beutler LE, Malik M, Talebi H, et al. Use of psychological tests/instruments for treatment planning. In: Marush ME, (ed). The Use of Psychological Testing for Treatment Planning and Outcomes Assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2004:111–146.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Derogatis LR, Culpepper WJ. Screening for psychiatric disorders. In: Marush ME, ed. The Use of Psychological Testing for Treatment Planing and Outcomes Assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2004:65–110.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lambert MJ, Hawkins EJ. Use of psychological tests for assessing treatment outcomes. In: Marush ME, ed. The Use of Psychological Testing for Treatment Planning and Outcomes Assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2004:171–195

    Google Scholar 

  4. Palen L-A, Graham JW, Smith EA, et al. Rates of missing responses in personal digital assistant (PDA) versus paper assessments. Evaluation Review. 2008;32:257–272.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ahluwalia MK. Multicultural issues in computer-based assessment. In: Suzuki LA, Ponterotto JG, eds. Handbook of multicultural assessment: Clinical, psychological, and educational applications. 3 rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2008:92–106.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wolford G, Rosenberg SD, Rosenberg HJ, et al.A Clinical Trial Comparing Interviewer and Computer-Assisted Assessment Among Clients With Severe Mental Illness. Psychiatric Services. 2008;59:769–775.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Eisen SV, Toche-Manley LL, Grissom GR. Computer-Administered Versus Paper-and-Pencil Mental Health Surveys. Psychiatric Services. 2004;55:1316–1317.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kobak KA, Greist JH, Jefferson JW, et al. Computer-administered clinical rating scales: A review. Psychopharmacology. 1996;127:291–301.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Chinman M, Young AS, Schell T, et al. Computer-assisted self-assessment in persons with severe mental illness. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 2004;65:1343–1351.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schmitz N, Hartkamp N, Brinschwitz C, et al. Computerized administration of the Symptom Checklist (SCL-90-R) and the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP-C) in psychosomatic outpatients. Psychiatry Research. 1999;87:217–221.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wijndaele K, Matton L, Duvigneaud N, et al. Reliability, equivalence, and respondent preference of computerized versus paper-and-pencil mental health questionnaires. Computers in Human Behavior. 2007;23:1958–1970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chan-Pensley E. Alcohol-use disorders identification test: A comparison between paper and pencil and computerized versions. Alcohol & Alcoholism. 1999;34:882–885.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 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. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 2007;41:737–743.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gwaltney CJ, Shields AL, Shiffman S. Equivalence of electronic and paper-and pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: A meta-analytic review. Value in Health. 2008;11:322–333.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Weber B, Schneider B, Fritze J, et al. Acceptance of computerized compared to paper-and-pencil assessment in psychiatric inpatients. Computers in Human Behavior. 2003;19:81–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Summerville A, Roese NJ. Dare to compare: Fact-based versus simulation based comparison in daily life. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2008;44:664–671.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Epstein DH, Willner-Reid J, Vahabzadeh M, et al. Real-time electronic diary reports of cue exposure and mood in the hours before cocaine and heroin craving and use. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2009;66:88–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Muehlenkamp JJ, Engel SG, Wadeson A, et al. Emotional state preceding and following acts of non-suicidal self-injury in bulimia nervosa patients. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2009;47:83–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bernhardt JM, Usdan S, Mays D, et al. Alcohol assessment using wireless handheld computers: A pilot study. Addictive Behaviors. 2007;32:3065–3070.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Younger J, Mackey S. Fibromyalgia symptoms are reduced by low-dose naltrexone. Pain Medicine. 2009;10:663–672.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Verduyn P, Delvaux E, Van Coillie H, et al. Predicting the duration of emotional experience: Two experience sampling studies. Emotion. 2009;9:83–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Granholm E, Loh C, Swendsen J. Feasibility and validity of computerized ecological momentary assessment in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin. 2008;34:507–514.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Shannon LM, Walker R, Blevins M. Developing a new system to measure outcomes in a service coordination program for youth with severe emotional disturbance. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2009;32:109–118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Eisen SV, Normand SL, Belanger AJ, et al. The Revised Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale (BASIS-R): Reliability and validity. Medical Care. 2004;42:1230–1341.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Eisen SV, Gerena M, Ranganathan G, et al. Reliability and validity of the BASIS-24 mental health survey for Whites, African-Americans, and Latinos. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. 2006;33:304–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Palmblad M, Tiplady, B. Electronic diaries and questionnaires: Designing user interfaces that are easy for all patients to use. Quality of Life Research. 2004;13:1199–1207.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Pennsylvania, 3535 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Lizabeth A. Goldstein BA, Sarah M. Thompson BA, Kelli Scott BA & Laura Heintz BA

  2. University of Pennsylvania, 3535 Market Street, Room 649, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Mary Beth Connolly Gibbons PhD

  3. Northwestern Human Services, 27 East Mt. Airy Ave, Philadelphia, PA, 19119, USA

    Patricia Green MS

  4. Northwestern Human Services, 906 Bethlehem Pike, Erdenheim, PA, 19038, USA

    Donald Thompson PhD

  5. University of Pennsylvania, 3535 Market Street, Room 650, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Paul Crits-Christoph PhD

Authors
  1. Lizabeth A. Goldstein BA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mary Beth Connolly Gibbons PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sarah M. Thompson BA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kelli Scott BA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Laura Heintz BA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Patricia Green MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Donald Thompson PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Paul Crits-Christoph PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Beth Connolly Gibbons PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goldstein, L.A., Connolly Gibbons, M.B., Thompson, S.M. et al. Outcome Assessment via Handheld Computer in Community Mental Health: Consumer Satisfaction and Reliability. J Behav Health Serv Res 38, 414–423 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-010-9229-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-010-9229-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation