Cited by 98Psychometric Methodologies and TestingSurvey Methodology and NonresponseAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Interformat reliability of the patient health questionnaire: validation of the computerized version of the PHQ-9

Open access
Erbe, Doris, Eichert, Hans-Christoph, Rietz, Christian, Ebert, David·2016·Internet Interventions

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Computerized versions of well-established measurements such as the PHQ-9 are widely used, but data on the comparability of psychometric properties are scarce. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare the interformat reliability of the paper-and-pen version with a computerized version of the PHQ-9 in a clinical sample. METHODS: 130 participants with mental health disorders were recruited during psychotherapeutic treatment in a mental health clinic. In a crossover design, they all completed the PHQ-9 in both the computerized and paper-and-pen versions in randomized order. RESULTS: = 0.92). PHQ-9 total scores were not significantly different between the paper and the computer delivered versions. There was a significant interaction effect between format and order of administration for the PHQ-9, indicating that the first administration delivered slightly higher scores. LIMITATIONS: In order to reduce the required effort for the participants, we did not ask them to fill out anything but the PHQ-9 once in paper and once in computer version. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the PHQ-9 can be transferred to computerized use without affecting psychometric properties in a clinically meaningful way.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.invent.2016.06.006

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Erbe, D., Eichert, H.-C., Rietz, C., & Ebert, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Cologne (DE)
  • Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
Corresponding author
Erbe, Doris
Venue
Internet Interventions
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-09
Volume
5
Pages
1-4
ISSN
2214-7829 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2465348707
Cited by
97
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1
FWCI
7.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Internet Interventions (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Kölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
PHQ-9, Patient Health Questionnaire, computerized administration, depression screening, psychometric properties, mental illness, psychotherapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review