ArticleThe Psychiatric quarterly2026
Analysis of the Validity of ChatGPT in the Assessment of Perceived Stress and Psychological Distress Among University Students: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in The Psychiatric quarterly, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study assessed the validity of the ChatGPT in measuring perceived stress and psychological distress in college students by comparing the consistency of the ChatGPT's scale-based adaptation of the scenario-based interview question scores with the scores of a validated questionnaire. ChatGPT-4 was used to adapt the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4) and the 10-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) into scenario-based interview questions with automated scoring. A total of 199 college students completed both the ChatGPT-4-generated scenario questions and the corresponding validated questionnaires. Internal consistency, Spearman correlations, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Bland-Altman analyses, item-level correlations, and K10 threshold-based agreement were evaluated. All participants completed both assessments, with no missing item or total-score data. ChatGPT-4-generated total scores showed moderate correlations with questionnaire scores for both K10 and PSS-4 (Spearman's ρ = 0.57 for both). The ICC indicated excellent agreement for K10 (ICC = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.89-0.93) and moderate agreement for PSS-4 (ICC = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.63-0.76). Bland-Altman analyses showed small positive mean differences, and item-level correlations were heterogeneous. K10 threshold-based analyses suggested more conservative classification at higher cutoffs. This study provides preliminary feasibility evidence for further validating ChatGPT-4-assisted contextualized scoring as an adjunctive assessment approach. Threshold-based screening performance, reproducibility, criterion validity, and generalizability require further investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42426540What 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.