基于人工智能的认知行为疗法培训工具的初步研究。

IF 2.6 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Psychotherapy Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-27 DOI:10.1037/pst0000550
Sarah L Kopelovich, Roisín Slevin, Rachel M Brian, Victoria Shepard, Scott A Baldwin, Dror Ben-Zeev, Mike Tanana, Zac Imel
{"title":"基于人工智能的认知行为疗法培训工具的初步研究。","authors":"Sarah L Kopelovich, Roisín Slevin, Rachel M Brian, Victoria Shepard, Scott A Baldwin, Dror Ben-Zeev, Mike Tanana, Zac Imel","doi":"10.1037/pst0000550","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We developed an asynchronous online cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) training tool that provides artificial intelligence- (AI-) enabled feedback to learners across eight CBT skills. We sought to evaluate the technical reliability and to ascertain how practitioners would use the tool to inform product iteration and future deployment. We conducted a single-arm 2-week field trial among behavioral health practitioners who treat outpatients with psychosis. Practitioners (<i>N</i> = 21) were invited to use the AI-enabled CBT training tool over a 2-week (15 days, inclusive) period. To enable naturalistic observation, no adjustments were made to their workloads nor were prescriptions on use provided. We conducted daily assessments and collected backend analytics for all users. At end point, we assessed acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility of implementation, perceived usability, satisfaction, and perceived impact of training. We observed four types of technical issues: broken links, intermittent issues receiving AI-enabled feedback, video replay errors, and an HTML error. Participants averaged 6.57 logins over the 2 weeks, with more than half engaging daily. Most participants (44.7%) engaged for < 30-min increments. Usability scores exceeded industry standard and satisfaction scores indicated good promotion of the tool. All participants endorsed high feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness. Twelve participants (57%) used the AI-enabled feedback feature; those who did tended to report improved satisfaction, feasibility, and perceived impact of the training. The training tool was used by practitioners in a routine care setting, met or exceeded conventional implementation benchmarks, and may support skill improvement; however, data suggest that practitioners may need support or accountability to fully leverage the training tool. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20910,"journal":{"name":"Psychotherapy","volume":" ","pages":"12-21"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11913585/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preliminary investigation of an artificial intelligence-based cognitive behavioral therapy training tool.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah L Kopelovich, Roisín Slevin, Rachel M Brian, Victoria Shepard, Scott A Baldwin, Dror Ben-Zeev, Mike Tanana, Zac Imel\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/pst0000550\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We developed an asynchronous online cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) training tool that provides artificial intelligence- (AI-) enabled feedback to learners across eight CBT skills. We sought to evaluate the technical reliability and to ascertain how practitioners would use the tool to inform product iteration and future deployment. We conducted a single-arm 2-week field trial among behavioral health practitioners who treat outpatients with psychosis. Practitioners (<i>N</i> = 21) were invited to use the AI-enabled CBT training tool over a 2-week (15 days, inclusive) period. To enable naturalistic observation, no adjustments were made to their workloads nor were prescriptions on use provided. We conducted daily assessments and collected backend analytics for all users. At end point, we assessed acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility of implementation, perceived usability, satisfaction, and perceived impact of training. We observed four types of technical issues: broken links, intermittent issues receiving AI-enabled feedback, video replay errors, and an HTML error. Participants averaged 6.57 logins over the 2 weeks, with more than half engaging daily. Most participants (44.7%) engaged for < 30-min increments. Usability scores exceeded industry standard and satisfaction scores indicated good promotion of the tool. All participants endorsed high feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness. Twelve participants (57%) used the AI-enabled feedback feature; those who did tended to report improved satisfaction, feasibility, and perceived impact of the training. The training tool was used by practitioners in a routine care setting, met or exceeded conventional implementation benchmarks, and may support skill improvement; however, data suggest that practitioners may need support or accountability to fully leverage the training tool. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20910,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychotherapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"12-21\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11913585/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychotherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000550\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000550","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们开发了一种异步在线认知行为疗法(CBT)培训工具,为学习者提供八种CBT技能的人工智能(AI)反馈。我们试图评估技术可靠性,并确定从业者将如何使用该工具来通知产品迭代和未来的部署。我们在治疗精神病门诊患者的行为健康从业人员中进行了一项为期两周的单臂实地试验。从业者(N = 21)被邀请在2周(15天,含15天)的时间内使用人工智能支持的CBT培训工具。为了进行自然观察,没有调整他们的工作量,也没有提供使用处方。我们每天对所有用户进行评估并收集后端分析。最后,我们评估了培训的可接受性、适当性、实施的可行性、感知的可用性、满意度和感知的影响。我们观察到四种类型的技术问题:断开的链接,间歇性问题接收人工智能启用的反馈,视频回放错误和HTML错误。参与者在两周内平均登录6.57次,超过一半的人每天登录。大多数参与者(44.7%)的时间增量小于30分钟。可用性得分超过行业标准,满意度得分表明该工具得到了良好的推广。所有与会者都赞同高可行性、可接受性和适当性。12名参与者(57%)使用了人工智能反馈功能;那些接受培训的人倾向于报告培训的满意度、可行性和可感知的影响。培训工具被从业人员在日常护理环境中使用,达到或超过了传统的实施基准,并可能支持技能提高;然而,数据表明,从业者可能需要支持或问责制来充分利用培训工具。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Preliminary investigation of an artificial intelligence-based cognitive behavioral therapy training tool.

We developed an asynchronous online cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) training tool that provides artificial intelligence- (AI-) enabled feedback to learners across eight CBT skills. We sought to evaluate the technical reliability and to ascertain how practitioners would use the tool to inform product iteration and future deployment. We conducted a single-arm 2-week field trial among behavioral health practitioners who treat outpatients with psychosis. Practitioners (N = 21) were invited to use the AI-enabled CBT training tool over a 2-week (15 days, inclusive) period. To enable naturalistic observation, no adjustments were made to their workloads nor were prescriptions on use provided. We conducted daily assessments and collected backend analytics for all users. At end point, we assessed acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility of implementation, perceived usability, satisfaction, and perceived impact of training. We observed four types of technical issues: broken links, intermittent issues receiving AI-enabled feedback, video replay errors, and an HTML error. Participants averaged 6.57 logins over the 2 weeks, with more than half engaging daily. Most participants (44.7%) engaged for < 30-min increments. Usability scores exceeded industry standard and satisfaction scores indicated good promotion of the tool. All participants endorsed high feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness. Twelve participants (57%) used the AI-enabled feedback feature; those who did tended to report improved satisfaction, feasibility, and perceived impact of the training. The training tool was used by practitioners in a routine care setting, met or exceeded conventional implementation benchmarks, and may support skill improvement; however, data suggest that practitioners may need support or accountability to fully leverage the training tool. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychotherapy
Psychotherapy PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
12.00%
发文量
93
期刊介绍: Psychotherapy Theory, Research, Practice, Training publishes a wide variety of articles relevant to the field of psychotherapy. The journal strives to foster interactions among individuals involved with training, practice theory, and research since all areas are essential to psychotherapy. This journal is an invaluable resource for practicing clinical and counseling psychologists, social workers, and mental health professionals.
×
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