Evaluation of telehealth administration of MMPI symptom validity scales.

IF 1.8 4区 心理学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Robert D Shura, Alison Sapp, Paul B Ingram, Timothy W Brearly
{"title":"Evaluation of telehealth administration of MMPI symptom validity scales.","authors":"Robert D Shura, Alison Sapp, Paul B Ingram, Timothy W Brearly","doi":"10.1080/13803395.2024.2314734","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Telehealth assessment (TA) is a quickly emerging practice, offered with increasing frequency across many different clinical contexts. TA is also well-received by most patients, and there are numerous guidelines and training opportunities which can support effective telehealth practice. Although there are extensive recommended practices, these guidelines have rarely been evaluated empirically, particularly on personality measures. While existing research is limited, it does generally support the idea that TA and in-person assessment (IA) produce fairly equitable test scores. The MMPI-3, a recently released and highly popular personality and psychopathology measure has been the subject of several of those experimental or student (non-client) based studies; however, no study to date has evaluated these trends within a clinical sample. This study empirically tests for differences in TA and IA test scores on the MMPI-3 validity scores when following recommended administration procedures.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Data were from a retrospective chart review. Veterans (<i>n</i> = 550) who underwent psychological assessment in a Veterans Affairs Medical Center ADHD evaluation clinic were contrasted between in person and telehealth assessment modalities on the MMPI-2-RF and MMPI-3. Groups were compared using <i>t</i> tests, chi square, and base rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results suggest that there were minimal differences in elevation rates or mean scores across modality, supporting the use of TA.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study's findings support the use of the MMPI via TA with ADHD evaluations, Veterans, and in neuro/psychological evaluation settings more generally. Observed elevation rates and mean scores of this study were notably different from those seen in other VA service clinics sampled nationally, which is an area of future investigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":15382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2024.2314734","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Telehealth assessment (TA) is a quickly emerging practice, offered with increasing frequency across many different clinical contexts. TA is also well-received by most patients, and there are numerous guidelines and training opportunities which can support effective telehealth practice. Although there are extensive recommended practices, these guidelines have rarely been evaluated empirically, particularly on personality measures. While existing research is limited, it does generally support the idea that TA and in-person assessment (IA) produce fairly equitable test scores. The MMPI-3, a recently released and highly popular personality and psychopathology measure has been the subject of several of those experimental or student (non-client) based studies; however, no study to date has evaluated these trends within a clinical sample. This study empirically tests for differences in TA and IA test scores on the MMPI-3 validity scores when following recommended administration procedures.

Method: Data were from a retrospective chart review. Veterans (n = 550) who underwent psychological assessment in a Veterans Affairs Medical Center ADHD evaluation clinic were contrasted between in person and telehealth assessment modalities on the MMPI-2-RF and MMPI-3. Groups were compared using t tests, chi square, and base rates.

Results: Results suggest that there were minimal differences in elevation rates or mean scores across modality, supporting the use of TA.

Conclusions: This study's findings support the use of the MMPI via TA with ADHD evaluations, Veterans, and in neuro/psychological evaluation settings more generally. Observed elevation rates and mean scores of this study were notably different from those seen in other VA service clinics sampled nationally, which is an area of future investigation.

对 MMPI 症状有效性量表的远程医疗管理进行评估。
导言:远程保健评估(TA)是一种迅速兴起的做法,在许多不同的临床环境中提供的频率越来越高。大多数患者也非常欢迎远程健康评估,而且有许多指南和培训机会可以支持有效的远程健康实践。虽然有广泛的推荐做法,但这些指南很少经过实证评估,尤其是在人格测量方面。虽然现有的研究很有限,但总体上支持这样一种观点,即 TA 和面对面评估(IA)会产生相当公平的测试分数。MMPI-3 是最近发布的一种非常流行的人格和心理病理学测量方法,它是多项实验或学生(非客户)研究的主题;然而,迄今为止,还没有任何研究对临床样本中的这些趋势进行过评估。本研究根据经验测试了在遵循推荐的管理程序时,TA 和 IA 测试得分在 MMPI-3 有效性得分上的差异:方法:数据来自回顾性病历审查。在退伍军人事务医疗中心多动症评估诊所接受心理评估的退伍军人(n = 550)在 MMPI-2-RF 和 MMPI-3 的亲身评估和远程医疗评估模式之间进行了对比。采用 t 检验、秩和方差分析和基数率对各组进行了比较:结果表明,不同模式下的升高率或平均得分差异极小,这支持了TA的使用:本研究结果支持通过TA在ADHD评估、退伍军人以及更广泛的神经/心理评估环境中使用MMPI。本研究观察到的升高率和平均分数与全国其他退伍军人服务诊所抽样调查的结果明显不同,这是未来调查的一个领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
52
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology ( JCEN) publishes research on the neuropsychological consequences of brain disease, disorders, and dysfunction, and aims to promote the integration of theories, methods, and research findings in clinical and experimental neuropsychology. The primary emphasis of JCEN is to publish original empirical research pertaining to brain-behavior relationships and neuropsychological manifestations of brain disease. Theoretical and methodological papers, critical reviews of content areas, and theoretically-relevant case studies are also welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信