ArticleFrontiers in psychology2019
Validating Automated Sentiment Analysis of Online Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Patient Texts: An Exploratory Study.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Natural language processing for mental health interventions: a systematic review and research framework.Translational psychiatry · 2023Pooled it
- Changes to the Psychiatric Chatbot Landscape: A Systematic Review of Conversational Agents in Serious Mental Illness: Changements du paysage psychiatrique des chatbots: une revue systématique des agents conversationnels dans la maladie mentale sérieuse.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2021Pooled it
- Capitalizing on natural language processing (NLP) to automate the evaluation of coach implementation fidelity in guided digital cognitive-behavioral therapy (GdCBT).Psychological medicine · 2025Trial
- Digital Health Interventions to Reduce Cancer-Related Fatigue Among Adolescents and Young Adults: Scoping Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- High risk of political bias in black box emotion inference models.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Public Health Discussions on Social Media: Evaluating Automated Sentiment Analysis Methods.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Dissecting the difference between positive and negative brain health sentiment using X data.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Examining a sentiment algorithm on session patient records in an eating disorder treatment setting: a preliminary study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- How Differing Audiences Were Associated with User Emotional Expression on a Well-Being App.Human behavior and emerging technologies · 2022Article
- News Text Mining-Based Business Sentiment Analysis and Its Significance in Economy.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Meaningful messaging: Sentiment in elite social media communication with the public on the COVID-19 pandemic.Science advances · 2021Article
- Ethics and Law in Research on Algorithmic and Data-Driven Technology in Mental Health Care: Scoping Review.JMIR mental health · 2021Article
- The promise of machine learning in predicting treatment outcomes in psychiatry.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2021Article
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.