MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158800491 · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2021.645805

Psychometric Properties of a Chatbot Version of the PHQ-9 With Adults and Older Adults

2021· article· en· W3158800491 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gilly Dosovitsky, Erick Kim, Eduardo L. Bunge

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Digital Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChatbotPatient Health QuestionnaireMedicineDepression (economics)PsychometricsClinical psychologyInternal consistencySample (material)Depressive symptomsPsychiatryArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) is a brief depression measure that has been validated. A chatbot version of the PHQ-9 would allow the assessment of depressive symptoms remotely, at a large scale and low cost. Objective: The current study aims to: Assess the feasibility of administering the PHQ-9 in a sample of adults and older adults via chatbot, report the psychometric properties of and identify the relationship between demographic variables and PHQ-9 total scores. Methods: A sample of 3,902 adults and older adults in the US and Canada were recruited through Facebook from August 2019 to February 2020 to complete the PHQ-9 using a chatbot. Results: A total of 3,895 (99.82%) completed the PHQ-9 successfully. The internal consistency of the PHQ-9 was 0.896 ( p < 0.05). A one factor structure was found to have good model fit [ X 2 (27, N = 1,948) = 365.396, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.080 (90% CI: 0.073, 0.088); CFI and TLI were 0.925 and 0.900, respectively, and SRMR was 0.039]. All of the demographic characteristics in this study were found to significantly predict PHQ-9 total score, however; their effect was negligible to weak. Conclusions: There was a large sample of adults and older adults were open to completing assessments via chatbot including those over 75. The psychometric properties of the chatbot version of the PHQ-9 provide initial support to the utilization of this assessment method.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Digital HealthSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207