A comparison of two computer-administered versions of the NIMH diagnostic interview schedule

This study compared three versions of the NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS): "traditional" interviewer-administered DIS; computer- Administered DIS (subject interacting alone with computer); computer-prompted DIS (interviewer using computer program as a guide).

Abstract

This study compared three versions of the NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS): "traditional" interviewer-administered DIS; computer-administered DIS (subject interacting alone with computer); computer-prompted DIS (interviewer using computer program as a guide). Kappas for 20 diagnoses ranged from .15 to .94, and averages for the three method pairs ranged from .57 to .64, which are comparable to other DIS reliability studies. Agreement between pairs of methods were comparable. Subjects' attitudes toward the computer interview were positive. While they felt they could better describe their feelings and ideas to a human, they found the computer contact less embarrassing. Overall, subjects had no preference for one method over another. Measures of social desirability and deviant response biases were correlated with diagnostic results. Reading ability did not affect subject's ability to respond to the DIS, although subjects with lower reading levels preferred the computer interview more.