Cover Image
QR Code

The utility of computer versus clinician-authored assessments in aiding the prediction of patient symptomatology.

The writers examined the differences between clinician-authored and computer-generated personality assessments. They asked 155 psychologists in independent practice to assess a patient based on the information they received: a Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory (MMPI)-2 profile; a MMPI-2...

Full description

Published in:Computers in Human Behavior Vol. 16; no. 5; pp. 519 - 537
Main Authors: Epstein, J., Rotunda, R. J.
Format: Article
Published: Elsevier Science September 2000
Subjects:
Computer software
Examinations
Personality tests
Test reliability
Test design
Pathological psychology
Online Access:View this record in EBSCOhost
Summary:The writers examined the differences between clinician-authored and computer-generated personality assessments. They asked 155 psychologists in independent practice to assess a patient based on the information they received: a Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory (MMPI)-2 profile; a MMPI-2 profile and demographic information; MMPI-2 profile, demographics, and a computer based test interpretation (CBTI) report; or MMPI-2 profile, demographics, and a clinician-authored report. Their findings indicate that subjects who received clinician-authored reports were most able to match hospital staff's rating of patient symptomatology and that those who received CBTI reports were typically not able to make accurate assessments of the patients. Furthermore, they contend that subjects who received a CBTI report of an ambiguous MMPI-2 profile were less accurate in assessing symptomatology than were those who received no report.