Does assessment type matter? A measurement invariance analysis of online and paper and pencil assessment of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE).

BACKGROUND: The psychometric properties of an online test are not necessarily identical to its paper and pencil original. The aim of this study is to test whether the factor structure of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE) is measurement invariant with respect to online vs. paper and pencil assessment. METHOD: The factor structure of CAPE items assessed by paper and pencil (N = 796) was compared with the factor structure of CAPE items assessed by the Internet (N = 21,590) using formal tests for Measurement Invariance (MI). The effect size was calculated by estimating the Signed Item Difference in the Sample (SIDS) index and the Signed Test Difference in the Sample (STDS) for a hypothetical subject who scores 2 standard deviations above average on the latent dimensions. RESULTS: The more restricted Metric Invariance model showed a significantly worse fit compared to the less restricted Configural Invariance model (χ(2)(23) = 152.75, p<0.001). However, the SIDS indices appear to be small, with an average of -0.11. A STDS of -4.80 indicates that Internet sample members who score 2 standard deviations above average would be expected to score 4.80 points lower on the CAPE total scale (ranging from 42 to 114 points) than would members of the Paper sample with the same latent trait score. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings did not support measurement invariance with respect to assessment method. Because of the small effect sizes, the measurement differences between the online assessed CAPE and its paper and pencil original can be neglected without major consequences for research purposes. However, a person with a high vulnerability for psychotic symptoms would score 4.80 points lower on the total scale if the CAPE is assessed online compared to paper and pencil assessment. Therefore, for clinical purposes, one should be cautious with online assessment of the CAPE.

Case registers in psychiatry: do they still have a role for research and service monitoring?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To follow up on reviews of case register research. Literature searches over a 2-year period were conducted to determine whether psychiatric case registers still have a role for research and service monitoring. RECENT FINDINGS: Case register research covers a wide range of topics, and is most often found in Denmark where national databases support all kinds of record linkage studies. Typically, case registers are used in studies of treated prevalence and incidence of psychiatric disorders, in research on patterns of care, as sampling frames in epidemiological studies, and in studies on risk factors and treatment outcome. SUMMARY: Despite a wide range of research based on administrative data, stakeholders in most countries are probably not well served by current priorities. Few studies investigate longitudinal patterns of service use to evaluate healthcare policies. There is a lack of comparative record linkage studies to inform local authorities on the cooperation between mental healthcare and public services. Implementing standard tools and procedures for routine outcome assessment seems still to be in an early phase in most register areas. When case register staff can capitalize on new opportunities, old and new case registers will continue to be important for research and service monitoring.