Login / Signup

Comparability and Validity of the Online and In-Person Administrations of the Inventory of Problems-29.

Luciano GirominiClaudia PignoloGerald YoungEric Y DroginAlessandro ZennaroDonald J Viglione
Published in: Psychological injury and law (2021)
While the psychometric equivalence of computerized versus paper-and-pencil administration formats has been documented for some tests, so far very few studies have focused on the comparability and validity of test scores obtained via in-person versus remote administrations, and none of them have researched a symptom validity test (SVT). To contribute to fill this gap in the literature, we investigated the scores of the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29) generated by various administration formats. More specifically, Study 1 evaluated the equivalence of scores from nonclinical individuals administered the IOP-29 remotely (n = 146) versus in-person via computer (n = 140) versus in-person via paper-and-pencil format (n = 140). Study 2 reviewed published IOP-29 studies conducted using remote/online versus in-person, paper-and-pencil test administrations to determine if remote testing could adversely influence the validity of IOP-29 test results. Taken together, our findings suggest that the effectiveness of the IOP-29 is preserved when alternating between face-to-face and online/remote formats.
Keyphrases
  • systematic review
  • social media
  • randomized controlled trial
  • health information
  • healthcare
  • machine learning
  • deep learning
  • mass spectrometry