An Internet-Based Symptom Checklist for Research and Clinical Practice in Neurology and Psychiatry

DOI: 10.4236/ojmp.2014.31011   PDF   HTML   XML   3,101 Downloads   4,614 Views  


For many years, computer technology has been used for patient evaluation in psychiatry, although, for the most part, the applications have been in clinical trials or other research projects. Computer-administered evaluations are thought to be more comprehensive and reliable and less biased than evaluations routinely conducted in clinical practice. Also, the use of continuous monitoring systems, which increasingly entails computer administration, has been related to improved treatment outcome. This report describes the development of a broad spectrum neuropsychiatric symptom questionnaire (NP3) that is freely available over the internet and prints a report as soon as the patient and/or concurrent informants have completed the test. The results of the questionnaire can be saved to a central database in order to generate serial reports.

Share and Cite:

C. Gualtieri, "An Internet-Based Symptom Checklist for Research and Clinical Practice in Neurology and Psychiatry," Open Journal of Medical Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 1, 2014, pp. 87-93. doi: 10.4236/ojmp.2014.31011.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] M. Slade, P. McCrone, E. Kuipers, M. Leese, S. Cahill, A. Parabiaghi, S. Priebe and G. Thornicroft, “Use of Standardised Outcome Measures in Adult Mental Health Services: Randomised Controlled Trial,” The British Journal of Psychiatry: The Journal of Mental Science, Vol. 189, 2006, pp. 330-336.
[2] D. Guthrie, M. McIntosh, T. Callaly, T. Trauer and T. Coombs, “Consumer Attitudes towards the Use of Routine Outcome Measures in a Public Mental Health Service: A Consumer-Driven Study,” International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2008, pp. 92-97.
[3] K. Eagar, T. Trauer and G. Mellsop, “Performance of Routine Outcome Measures in Adult Mental Health Care,” The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 39, No. 8, 2005, pp. 713-718.
[4] A. S. Kesselheim, T. G. Ferris and D. M. Studdert, “Will Physician-Level Measures of Clinical Performance Be Used in Medical Malpractice Litigation?” JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 295, No. 15, 2006, pp. 1831-1834.
[5] D. Srebnik, M. Hendryx, J. Stevenson, S. Caverly, D. G. Dyck and A. M. Cauce, “Development of Outcome Indicators for Monitoring the Quality of Public Mental Health Care,” Psychiatric Services (Washington, DC), Vol. 48, No. 7, 1997, pp. 903-909.
[6] J. N. Butcher, J. N. Perry and M. M. Atlis, “Validity and Utility of Computer-Based Test Interpretation,” Psychological Assessment, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2000, pp. 6-18.
[7] H. N. Garb, “Computer-Administered Interviews and Rating Scales,” Psychological Assessment, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2007, pp. 4-13.
[8] B. Byrom and J. C. Mundt, “The Value of Computer-Administered Self-Report Data in Central Nervous System Clinical Trials,” Current Opinion in Drug Discovery & Development, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2005, pp. 374-383.
[9] K. A. Kobak, J. H. Greist, J. W. Jefferson and D. J. Katzelnick, “Computer-Administered Clinical Rating Scales. A Review,” Psychopharmacology, Vol. 127, No. 4, 1996, pp. 291-301.
[10] K. A. Kobak, W. M. Reynolds and J. H. Griest, “Computerized and Clinician Assessment of Depression and Anxiety: Respondent Evaluation and Satisfaction,” Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 63, No. 1, 1994, pp. 173-180.
[11] K. A. Kobak, S. C. Schaettle, J. H. Greist, J. W. Jefferson, D. J. Katzelnick and S. L. Dottl, “Computer-Administered Rating Scales for Social Anxiety in a Clinical Drug Trial,” Depression and Anxiety, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1998, pp. 97-104.<97::AIDDA1>3.0.CO;2-2
[12] K. A. Kobak, L. H. Taylor, S. L. Dottl, J. H. Greist, J. W. Jefferson, D. Burroughs, J. M. Mantle, et al., “A Computer-Administered Telephone Interview to Identify Mental Disorders,” JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 278, No. 11, 1997, pp. 905-910.
[13] P. M. Symonds, “On the Loss of Reliability in Ratings Due to the Coarseness of the Scale,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 7, No. 6, 1924, pp. 456-461.
[14] W. R. Garner, “Rating Scales, Discriminability, and Information Transmission,” Psychological Review, Vol. 67, No. 6, 1960, pp. 343-352.
[15] C. C. Preston and A. M. Colman, “Optimal Number of Response Categories in Rating Scales: Reliability, Validity, Discriminating Power, and Respondent Preferences,” Acta Psychologica, Vol. 104, No. 1, 2000, pp. 1-15.
[16] H. G. Schutz and M. H. Rucker, “Variable Configurations across Scale Lengths: An Empirical Study,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 35, No. 2, 1975, pp. 319-324.
[17] R. Berzon, R. D. Hays and S. A. Shumaker, “International Use, Application and Performance of Health-Related Quality of Life Instruments,” Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, Vol. 2, No. 6, 1993, pp. 367-368.
[18] J. L. Hedlund and B. W. Vieweg, “The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression: A Comprehensive Review,” Journal of Operational Psychiatry, Vol. 10, 1979, pp. 149-165.
[19] I. McDowell and C. Newell, “Measuring Health. A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires,” 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, New York, 1996.
[20] S. M. Gilbody, A. O. House and T. Sheldon, “Routine Administration of Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and Needs Assessment Instruments to Improve Psychological Outcome—A Systematic Review,” Psychological Medicine, Vol. 32, No. 8, 2002, pp. 1345-1356.

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.