Automating standard alcohol use assessment instruments via interactive voice response technology
Automating standard alcohol use assessment instruments via interactive voice response technology
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1530-0277.2002.tb02525.x
复制
发表时间：
2002-02-01
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Hartley, MT
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mundt, JC;Bohn, MJ;Hartley, MT
背景：交互式语音应答（IVR）技术将按键式电话与计算机自动数据处理相结合。IVR为远程收集自报数据提供了一种方便、高效的方法。从门诊酒精治疗中心招募的26名受试者完成了IVR和纸/笔版本的人口统计学和饮酒史问卷、改变准备阶段和治疗障碍量表、饮酒者后果量表、强迫性饮酒量表、酒精依赖量表、以及前一周期间的渴望和饮酒欲望的两个数字评级量表。1周后重复两种形式的器械给药。在受试者之间平衡给药方法的顺序，并在数据收集期间颠倒。两种方法的量表和分量表分数在会议期间相关。还计算了每种方法的重测相关性。α = 0.01的标准被用来控制I型statistical error.Results：Intermethod的相关性在每个会话中显着的所有管理的仪器。两种方法的重测相关性也是显着的，除了数字评级。通过IVR获得的酒精依赖量表评分显著低于纸/笔收集的评分。数据收集方法之间或各次会议之间的其他差异不一致。平均IVR通话时长为34分23秒。纸/笔的形式需要平均18分钟和38秒完成，并额外的10分钟和17秒的数据entry.Conclusions：IVR技术提供了一个方便的选择，收集自我报告的治疗结果的措施。纸/笔和IVR评估提供了高度收敛的数据，并表现出良好的重测信度。不同方法之间的酒精依赖量表评分差异突出了IVR适应现有纸/笔工具的特殊考虑。IVR的好处包括程序标准化、自动数据评分、直接电子存储和从多个位置远程访问。
Background: Interactive voice response (IVR) technology integrates touch-tone telephones with computer-automated data processing. IVR offers a convenient, efficient method for remote collection of self-report data.Methods: Twenty-six subjects recruited from an outpatient alcohol treatment center completed IVR and paper/pencil versions of a demographic and drinking history questionnaire, Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale, Drinker Inventory of Consequences, Obsessive-Compulsive Drinking Scale, Alcohol Dependence Scale, and two numerical rating scales of craving and desire to drink during the prior week. Administration of the instruments in both formats was repeated 1 week later. The order of administration method was counterbalanced between subjects and reversed across data collection sessions. Scale and subscale scores from both methods were correlated within sessions. Test-retest correlations were also calculated for each method. A criterion of alpha = 0.01 was used to control type I statistical error.Results: Intermethod correlations within each session were significant for all of the instruments administered. Test-retest correlations for both methods were also significant, except for the numerical ratings. Scores on the Alcohol Dependence Scale obtained via IVR were significantly lower than those collected by paper/pencil. Other differences between the data collection methods or across the sessions were inconsistent. The average IVR call length was 34 min and 23 sec. Paper/pencil forms required an average of 18 min and 38 sec to complete and an additional 10 min and 17 sec for data entry.Conclusions: IVR technology provides a convenient alternative to collecting self-report measures of treatment outcomes. Both paper/pencil and IVR assessments provide highly convergent data and demonstrate good test-retest reliability. Alcohol Dependence Scale score differences between methods highlight special considerations for IVR adaptation of existing paper/pencil instruments. Benefits of IVR include procedural standardization, automatic data scoring, direct electronic storage, and remote accessibility from multiple locations.