Precise Language Responses Challenge Easy Rating Scales - Comparing Clinicians’ and Respondents’ Views

Abstract

BackgroundClosed-ended rating scales are the most used response format for researchers and clinicians to quantify mental states, whereas in natural contexts people communicate with natural language. The reason for using such scales is that they are typically argued to be more precise in measuring mental constructs, whereas the respondents’ views as to what best communicates mental states are frequently ignored.MethodsWe assessed respondents’ (N = 304) degree of depression using rating scales, descriptive words, selected words, and free text responses and probed the respondents and clinicians (N = 40) for their attitudes to the response formats across twelve dimensions related to the precision of communicating their mental states and the ease of responding.ResultsRespondents found free text to be more precise (e.g., precision d’ = .88, elaboration d’ = 2.0) than rating scales, whereas rating scales were rated as easier to respond to (e.g., easier d’ = – .67, faster d’ = –1.13). Respondents preferred the free text responses to a greater degree than rating scales compared to clinicians.ConclusionsThese finding supports the idea that future assessment of mental health can be aided by computational method based on text data.

Question-based computational language assessment shows higher validity than rating scales in the categorization of emotional state narratives

“…First, language is a natural way that people communicate their mental states. People prefer to communicate mental health with language rather than rating scales because they find language to be more precise and elaborate, and they prefer using language during communication with clinicians, although rating scales are seen as easier and faster 23 . Second, open-ended language responses allow for describing the participant's mental health, thus providing an opportunity for person-centred health care.…”