Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36315228›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2022

Validity of Chatbot Use for Mental Health Assessment: Experimental Study.

Anita Schick, Jasper Feine, Stefan Morana, Alexander Maedche, Ulrich Reininghaus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2022. 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. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. An Integrative Survey on Mental Health Conversational Agents to Bridge Computer Science and Medical Perspectives.Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · 2023
    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.

Anita SchickDepartment of Public Mental Health, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2043-0353
Jasper FeineInstitute of Information Systems and Marketing, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0462-1467
Stefan MoranaJunior Professorship for Digital Transformation and Information Systems, Saarland University, Saarbruecken, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2266-1286
Alexander MaedcheInstitute of Information Systems and Marketing, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6546-4816
Ulrich ReininghausDepartment of Public Mental Health, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9227-5436

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMental disorders in adolescence and young adulthood are major public health concerns. Digital tools such as text-based conversational agents (ie, chatbots) are a promising technology for facilitating mental health assessment. However, the human-like interaction style of chatbots may induce potential biases, such as socially desirable responding (SDR), and may require further effort to complete assessments.

objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the convergent and discriminant validity of chatbots for mental health assessments, the effect of assessment mode on SDR, and the effort required by participants for assessments using chatbots compared with established modes.

methodsIn a counterbalanced within-subject design, we assessed 2 different constructs-psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale and Brief Symptom Inventory-18) and problematic alcohol use (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-3)-in 3 modes (chatbot, paper-and-pencil, and web-based), and examined convergent and discriminant validity. In addition, we investigated the effect of mode on SDR, controlling for perceived sensitivity of items and individuals' tendency to respond in a socially desirable way, and we also assessed the perceived social presence of modes. Including a between-subject condition, we further investigated whether SDR is increased in chatbot assessments when applied in a self-report setting versus when human interaction may be expected. Finally, the effort (ie, complexity, difficulty, burden, and time) required to complete the assessments was investigated.

resultsA total of 146 young adults (mean age 24, SD 6.42 years; n=67, 45.9% female) were recruited from a research panel for laboratory experiments. The results revealed high positive correlations (all P<.001) of measures of the same construct across different modes, indicating the convergent validity of chatbot assessments. Furthermore, there were no correlations between the distinct constructs, indicating discriminant validity. Moreover, there were no differences in SDR between modes and whether human interaction was expected, although the perceived social presence of the chatbot mode was higher than that of the established modes (P<.001). Finally, greater effort (all P<.05) and more time were needed to complete chatbot assessments than for completing the established modes (P<.001).

conclusionsOur findings suggest that chatbots may yield valid results. Furthermore, an understanding of chatbot design trade-offs in terms of potential strengths (ie, increased social presence) and limitations (ie, increased effort) when assessing mental health were established.

Indexed as

AlcoholismMental HealthAdolescentAdultCommunicationFemaleHumansMaleSelf ReportYoung Adultchatbotdistressmobile healthmonitoringsocial desirabilitysocial presence

Identifiers

PMID36315228
PMCPMC9664331

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.