Validation of the structured interview section of the penn computerized adaptive test for neurocognitive and clinical psychopathology assessment (CAT GOASSESS).

Large-scale studies and burdened clinical settings require precise, efficient measures that assess multiple domains of psychopathology. Computerized adaptive tests (CATs) can reduce administration time without compromising data quality. We examined feasibility and validity of an adaptive psychopathology measure, GOASSESS, in a clinical community-based sample (N = 315; ages 18-35) comprising three groups: healthy controls, psychosis, mood/anxiety disorders. Assessment duration was compared between the Full and CAT GOASSESS. External validity was tested by comparing how the CAT and Full versions related to demographic variables, study group, and socioeconomic status. The relationships between scale scores and criteria were statistically compared within a mixed-model framework to account for dependency between relationships. Convergent validity was assessed by comparing scores of the CAT and the Full GOASSESS using Pearson correlations. The CAT GOASSESS reduced interview duration by more than 90 % across study groups and preserved relationships to external criteria and demographic variables as the Full GOASSESS. All CAT GOASSESS scales could replace those of the Full instrument. Overall, the CAT GOASSESS showed acceptable psychometric properties and demonstrated feasibility by markedly reducing assessment time compared to the Full GOASSESS. The adaptive version could be used in large-scale studies or clinical settings for intake screening.

Validation of the cognitive section of the Penn computerized adaptive test for neurocognitive and clinical psychopathology assessment (CAT-CCNB).

BACKGROUND: The Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery is an efficient tool for assessing brain-behavior domains, and its efficiency was augmented via computerized adaptive testing (CAT). This battery requires validation in a separate sample to establish psychometric properties. METHODS: In a mixed community/clinical sample of N = 307 18-to-35-year-olds, we tested the relationships of the CAT tests with the full-form tests. We compared discriminability among recruitment groups (psychosis, mood, control) and examined how their scores relate to demographics. CAT-Full relationships were evaluated based on a minimum inter-test correlation of 0.70 or an inter-test correlation within at least 0.10 of the full-form correlation with a previous administration of the full battery. Differences in criterion relationships were tested via mixed models. RESULTS: Most tests (15/17) met the minimum criteria for replacing the full-form with the updated CAT version (mean r = 0.67; range = 0.53-0.80) when compared to relationships of the full-forms with previous administrations of the full-forms (mean r = 0.68; range = 0.50-0.85). Most (16/17) CAT-based relationships with diagnostics and other validity criteria were indistinguishable (interaction p > 0.05) from their full-form counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: The updated CNB shows psychometric properties acceptable for research. The full-forms of some tests should be retained due to insufficient time savings to justify the loss in precision.