The interactive computer interview for mania.
The interactive computer interview for mania.
复制标题
狂热的交互式计算机采访。
DOI：
10.1111/j.1399-5618.2010.00844.x
复制
发表时间：
2010
影响因子：
5.4
通讯作者：
Sachs,GaryS
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Reilly-Harrington,NoreenA;DeBonis,Daniel;Leon,AndrewC;Sylvia,Louisa;Perlis,Roy;Lewis,Daniel;Sachs,GaryS
Reilly哈灵顿NA，DeBonis D，Leon AC，Sylvia L，Perlis R，刘易斯D，Sachs GS.躁狂症的交互式计算机访谈。双相情感障碍2010：12：521-527。
© 2010作者。Journal compilation © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S.目标：躁狂症交互式计算机访谈（ICI‐M）是一种计算机管理的访谈，提供探针以评估症状严重程度，并利用评分算法选择随访问题并根据评级量表锚点对受试者的反应进行评级。目前的研究探讨的可接受性，可行性和可靠性的ICI-M作为一个潜在的方法，用于评估人类raters.Methods的性能：诊断为双相I或II障碍的参与者完成了现场采访的青年躁狂症评定量表与人类rater（LR）和ICI-M。由三名专家评分员组成的小组审查了每份LR录像并给出了共识评分（CR）。结果：ICI-M和CR之间的组内相关系数为0.91，LR和CR之间的组内相关系数为0.97（n = 100），为每种方法的评分者间可靠性提供了实证支持。 系数α表明内部一致性可靠性相当：ICI-M = 0.82，LR = 0.83，CR = 0.84。 ICI-M在检测精神分裂症方面比LR（p <0.001）和CR（p <0.001）显著更敏感，并且在情绪、言语、精神病内容和破坏性攻击行为方面的评分显著高于CR。 虽然参与者认可LR的总体满意度显着较高，但ICI‐M和LR之间在再次参与意愿或理解问题的能力方面没有显着差异。结论：ICI‐M是一种公认的和可靠的评估躁狂症状的方法。ICI-M是一种具有足够灵敏度的工具，可以引出症状和评定严重程度，建议将其作为监测和改善评定者表现的工具，而不是替代人类评定者。
Reilly‐Harrington NA, DeBonis D, Leon AC, Sylvia L, Perlis R, Lewis D, Sachs GS. The interactive computer interview for mania.
Bipolar Disord 2010: 12: 521–527. © 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S.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.