Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31156504›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2019

Validating Automated Sentiment Analysis of Online Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Patient Texts: An Exploratory Study.

Simon Provoost, Jeroen Ruwaard, Ward van Breda, Heleen Riper, Tibor Bosse

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The promise of machine learning in predicting treatment outcomes in psychiatry.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Simon ProvoostDepartment of Clinical, Neuro- and Developmental Psychology, Section Clinical Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Jeroen RuwaardDepartment of Psychiatry, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Ward van BredaNeedForward Research, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
Heleen RiperDepartment of Clinical, Neuro- and Developmental Psychology, Section Clinical Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Tibor BosseBehavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSentiment analysis may be a useful technique to derive a user's emotional state from free text input, allowing for more empathic automated feedback in online cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) interventions for psychological disorders such as depression. As guided iCBT is considered more effective than unguided iCBT, such automated feedback may help close the gap between the two. The accuracy of automated sentiment analysis is domain dependent, and it is unclear how well the technology is applicable to iCBT. This paper presents an empirical study in which automated sentiment analysis by an algorithm for the Dutch language is validated against human judgment.

methodsA total of 493 iCBT user texts were evaluated on overall sentiment and the presence of five specific emotions by an algorithm, and by 52 psychology students who evaluated 75 randomly selected texts each, providing about eight human evaluations per text. Inter-rater agreement (IRR) between algorithm and humans, and humans among each other, was analyzed by calculating the intra-class correlation under a numerical interpretation of the data, and Cohen's kappa, and Krippendorff's alpha under a categorical interpretation.

resultsAll analyses indicated moderate agreement between the algorithm and average human judgment with respect to evaluating overall sentiment, and low agreement for the specific emotions. Somewhat surprisingly, the same was the case for the IRR among human judges, which means that the algorithm performed about as well as a randomly selected human judge. Thus, considering average human judgment as a benchmark for the applicability of automated sentiment analysis, the technique can be considered for practical application. DISCUSSION/

conclusionThe low human-human agreement on the presence of emotions may be due to the nature of the texts, it may simply be difficult for humans to agree on the presence of the selected emotions, or perhaps trained therapists would have reached more consensus. Future research may focus on validating the algorithm against a more solid benchmark, on applying the algorithm in an application in which empathic feedback is provided, for example, by an embodied conversational agent, or on improving the algorithm for the iCBT domain with a bottom-up machine learning approach.

Indexed as

automated supportbenchmarking and validationcognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)depressionembodied conversational agent (ECA)e-mental healthinternet interventionssentiment analysis and opinion mining

Identifiers

PMID31156504
PMCPMC6530336

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.