Levels of Error in Computerised Psychological Inventories

Most, Robert

doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1987.tb01198.x

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among these are (a) unreliability of measures (including both the test itself as well as nontest criteria on which test narratives may be based), (b) unwillingness to permit "unclassified" cases in situations of insufficient or ambiguous data, (c) inadequate attention to base rates and poorly analyzed cutting scores, (d) prediction of nontest behaviors beyond those warranted by specific test findings, and (e) generalization across testing situations and populations without regard for potential moderators. Additional sources of error in CBTIs include miscommunication between the interpretation author and the programmer, as well as errors hi the automated-interpretive algorithm itself (Most, 1987).…”

Section: Validity Of Cbtismentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer-assisted judgment: Defining strengths and liabilities.

Snyder¹

2000

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinicians often fail to recognize limitations in their own subjective judgments, make use of well-developed mechanical-prediction methods, or carefully evaluate which computer-based aids warrant their consideration. This article addresses issues regarding computer-based test interpretations (CBTIs) and computer-based decision making. Comments highlight conclusions reached by other contributors to this Special Section, additional literature bearing on these observations, and implications for consumers of computer-assisted techniques and researchers developing or evaluating these methods. The future of computer-assisted assessment depends on educating clinicians and researchers to be better consumers of existing as well as emerging technologies in this domain.

show abstract

Section: Validity Of Cbtismentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer-assisted judgment: Defining strengths and liabilities.

Snyder¹

2000

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study, there were some instances of unequal total score variances for the two CES-D methods in both languages. The variability may be related to extreme response styles (the tendency to choose the extreme ends of a response scale), which may occur among Latinos (Marin, Gamba, & Marin, 1992); alterations in participants' responses because items are verbally presented (Most, 1987); or measurement error (Shavelson, Webb, & Rowley, 1989). In-depth analyses of these issues need to be considered in future studies.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bilingual Telephone-Assisted Computerized Speech-Recognition Assessment: Is a Voice-Activated Computer Program a Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Tool for Screening Depression in English and Spanish?

González

Costello

Tourette

et al. 1997

Cultural Diversity and Mental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate an automated voice-interactive program for screening depression in English and Spanish. The Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D) was administered in two interview formats: a speech recognition program presented by cellular telephone, and a face-to-face method. In a single-session counterbalanced design, 32 English speakers and 23 Spanish speakers completed randomly ordered administrations of the two CES-D methods, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and the Short Acculturation Scale (SAS). There was strong evidence that the two CES-D methods were psychometrically equivalent, reliable, and valid in both languages. The two methods were highly rated by both language groups. The Spanish speakers did not display a preference for either method, but the English speakers preferred the face-to-face method. The results also suggested that verbal response latency time was positively correlated with depression scores. Last, the Spanish-speakers' acculturation levels were not correlated with depression scores. Differences in age, education, and income between the language groups were confounded by unequal sample sizes. The findings generally supported the viability of the automated CES-D as a culturally and linguistically appropriate tool for screening depression in English and Spanish. Furthermore, the analyses of respondent voice characteristics show promise as a method for screening depression in both languages.

show abstract

“…For example, regardless of the number or expertise of raters and number of test respondents included in a validational study of a computerized interpretive system for the MMPI, if all profiles were to fall generally within the neurotic spectrum, we would learn nothing of the validity of the CBTI system for nonneurotic codetypes. The inherent difficulties in validating computer-based narratives for low base-rate conditions has been discussed by Most (1987).…”

Section: Subject Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodological considerations in validating computer-based test interpretations: Controlling for response bias.

Snyder

Widiger²,

Hoover³

1990

Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although computer-based test interpretation (CBTI) systems have been operational for nearly 25 years, their availability and adoption in routine clinical practice have grown exponentially in recent years. This article addresses methodological considerations in CBTI validation studies, emphasizing those design issues relevant to customer satisfaction studies. Specifically, issues of response bias are addressed as they relate to selection of raters and test respondents, use of random reports as a "control" for spurious ratings of report validity, and both the format and content of ratings. Deficiencies of various studies from the research literature are reviewed, and advantages and limitations of design alternatives are discussed.Both the availability and adoption of computer-based test interpretation (CBTI) systems have grown exponentially over the last decade. Krug (1984) listed over 200 computer software applications of psychological testing, and most experts predict the growth of computer-based assessment products to continue (Butcher, 1987b;Lanyon, 1987;Mitchell & Kramer, 1985). The potential for CBTIs to facilitate assessment is without question. Research findings generally indicate that "well-designed statistical treatment of test results and ancillary information will yield more valid assessments than will an individual professional using the same information" (American Psychological Association, 1986, p. 13). Computerized interpretive narratives, when developed on a broad actuarial foundation of empirical findings relating test indices to relevant external criteria, offer distinct advantages, including (a) economy of processing and more effective use of professional resources; (b) accuracy and consistency of scoring and implementation of interpretive decision rules; (c) virtually unlimited capacity for storage, indexing, and retrieval of relevant information from the clinical and research literature regarding test-behavior relationships; (d) ability to subject test indicators to complex, configural analyses; and (e) potential for automated collection and analysis of extensive normative data bases (Jackson, 1985;Krug, 1987).However, the proliferation of computer-based assessment has also generated considerable controversy (BersofF, 1989

show abstract

Levels of Error in Computerised Psychological Inventories

Cited by 6 publications

References 7 publications

Computer-assisted judgment: Defining strengths and liabilities.

Computer-assisted judgment: Defining strengths and liabilities.

Bilingual Telephone-Assisted Computerized Speech-Recognition Assessment: Is a Voice-Activated Computer Program a Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Tool for Screening Depression in English and Spanish?

Methodological considerations in validating computer-based test interpretations: Controlling for response bias.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About