Usability and Emotions of Mental Health Assessment Tools: Comparing Mobile App and Paper-and-Pencil Modalities

Yang S. Liu, J. Hankey, N. Lou, P. Chokka, Jason M. Harley
{"title":"Usability and Emotions of Mental Health Assessment Tools: Comparing Mobile App and Paper-and-Pencil Modalities","authors":"Yang S. Liu, J. Hankey, N. Lou, P. Chokka, Jason M. Harley","doi":"10.1080/15228835.2021.1902457","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Users’ experiences in mental health assessment are multifaceted, including their emotional experiences. Yet, studies of mobile apps for psychiatric assessment have centered on diagnostic accuracy and perceived usability, with little consideration of the impact of user emotional experiences. In this study, we focused on users’ perceived usability and emotions and compared the user experience of a paper-and-pencil and an app-based collection of mental health screening questionnaires: EarlyDetect. The System Usability Scale (SUS) and modality-directed emotion questionnaires were administered using paper-and-pencil or iPad. Modality was assigned pseudo-randomly on patients’ first visit at a referral-based mental health clinic. We found that patients assigned to the iPad app reported a significantly higher SUS score than patients assigned to paper-and-pencil, qualified by a modality-by-gender interaction where modality effects were significant for men but not for women. Moreover, enjoyment was positively linked to perceived usability, whereas boredom, frustration, and anxiety were negatively linked to usability. Our findings illustrate the added value of studying user experience applied to psychiatric assessments, where both emotions and gender-specific user experience should be taken into consideration. We further discuss the implications for psychiatric assessments via app versus traditional data collection.","PeriodicalId":46115,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY IN HUMAN SERVICES","volume":"39 1","pages":"193 - 211"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15228835.2021.1902457","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY IN HUMAN SERVICES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2021.1902457","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract Users’ experiences in mental health assessment are multifaceted, including their emotional experiences. Yet, studies of mobile apps for psychiatric assessment have centered on diagnostic accuracy and perceived usability, with little consideration of the impact of user emotional experiences. In this study, we focused on users’ perceived usability and emotions and compared the user experience of a paper-and-pencil and an app-based collection of mental health screening questionnaires: EarlyDetect. The System Usability Scale (SUS) and modality-directed emotion questionnaires were administered using paper-and-pencil or iPad. Modality was assigned pseudo-randomly on patients’ first visit at a referral-based mental health clinic. We found that patients assigned to the iPad app reported a significantly higher SUS score than patients assigned to paper-and-pencil, qualified by a modality-by-gender interaction where modality effects were significant for men but not for women. Moreover, enjoyment was positively linked to perceived usability, whereas boredom, frustration, and anxiety were negatively linked to usability. Our findings illustrate the added value of studying user experience applied to psychiatric assessments, where both emotions and gender-specific user experience should be taken into consideration. We further discuss the implications for psychiatric assessments via app versus traditional data collection.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
心理健康评估工具的可用性和情感:手机应用程序与纸笔方式的比较
用户在心理健康评估中的体验是多方面的,包括他们的情感体验。然而,对精神病评估移动应用程序的研究主要集中在诊断准确性和感知可用性上,很少考虑用户情感体验的影响。在这项研究中,我们关注用户的感知可用性和情感,并比较了纸笔和基于应用程序的心理健康筛查问卷收集的用户体验:EarlyDetect。系统可用性量表(SUS)和情态导向情绪问卷使用纸笔或iPad进行管理。在转诊为基础的心理健康诊所,患者首次就诊时,模式被伪随机分配。我们发现,使用iPad应用程序的患者报告的SUS评分明显高于使用纸笔的患者,这是一种基于性别的模式互动,其中模式效应对男性显著,但对女性不显著。此外,乐趣与感知可用性呈正相关,而无聊、沮丧和焦虑与可用性呈负相关。我们的研究结果说明了研究应用于精神病学评估的用户体验的附加价值,其中应考虑到情感和性别特定的用户体验。我们进一步讨论了通过应用程序与传统数据收集对精神病学评估的影响。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
6
期刊介绍: This peer-reviewed, refereed journal explores the potentials of computer and telecommunications technologies in mental health, developmental disability, welfare, addictions, education, and other human services. The Journal of Technology in Human Services covers the full range of technological applications, including direct service techniques. It not only provides the necessary historical perspectives on the use of computers in the human service field, but it also presents articles that will improve your technology literacy and keep you abreast of state-of-the-art developments.
期刊最新文献
Development of the Mobile Application to Prevent Suicide (MAPS), a Personalized Smartphone App for Suicide Prevention: Feedback from Individual Interviews Online Employment Services for Immigrant Professionals: An Environmental Scan Experiences of Older Adult Volunteers and Nursing Simulation Coordinators in a Graduate-Level Primary Care Telehealth Simulation: Benefits, Facilitators, and Volunteer Management Considerations The Use of Online Medical Record Functionalities in Older Adulthood: The Role of Use Encouragement and Access Frequency An Information Acquisition Approach on How Young Adults Search for 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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1