Assessment of suicide risk by computer‐delivered self‐rating questionnaire: preliminary findings

Abstract

A prospective study of 167 consecutive patients admitted to a general hospital following an episode of deliberate self-harm was carried out; 102 patients were interviewed by computer and then by a psychiatrist who was blind to the results of the computer interview. The computer interview consisted of a self-rating modification of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and a novel questionnaire developed to assess suicidal ideation. This article explores the preliminary findings in these patients and suggests that not only is the computer interview acceptable to the majority of patients but the data suggest, in line with previous studies, that the patients are prepared to confide information to the computer that they may be unwilling to tell the clinician. Further the data also suggest a significant pathoplastic effect of the personality of the patient on the perception of the psychopathology by the clinician. The computer appeared to be a better predictor of suicidality than the interview by the clinician.

Is it valid to measure suicidal ideation by depression rating scales?

“…Subjects in out-patient clinical trials may well deny stigmatized suicidal ideas and behaviors causing Type II error (false negatives). This difference between clinician and self-report assessments regarding suicidality has been found across many years with higher levels of false negatives in clinician ratings than in self-report assessments (Greist et al, 1973;Levine et al, 1989;Vitiello et al, 2009). Clinician raters in clinical trials may also be biased against finding suicidality if suicidality is an exclusion criterion for participation in a clinical trial.…”

Internet research: Self-monitoring and judgments of attractiveness

“…There is evidence that increased self-disclosure may be found with stand-alone computerized tests (e.g., Levine, Ancill, & Roberts, 1988), although the effect may be mediated by individual differences in respondents (Rosenfeld et aI., 1991). There are reasons to believe that this effect extends to Webmediated instruments.…”

In the Privacy of Their Own Homes: Using the Internet to Assess Racial Bias

“…In doing so, remote-access Internet-based studies appear to reduce social desirability distortion (Richman, Kiesler, Weisband, & Drasgow, 1999;Tourangeau & Smith, 1996). For example, compared to direct interviews, computer-based assessments have been shown to produce greater disclosure of drinking habits (Locke & Gilbert, 1995), illicit drug use, sexual promiscuity (Tourangeau & Smith, 1996), suicidal ideation (Levine, Ancil, & Roberts, 1989), and lower scores on the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Martin & Nagao, 1989). Citing research dating back to the 1960s, Richman et al (1999) concluded that "computer instruments reduced social desirability distortion when these instruments were used as a substitute for face-to-face interviews, particularly when the interviews were asking respondents to reveal highly sensitive personal behavior" (p. 771).…”