Precise language responses versus easy rating scales—Comparing respondents’ views with clinicians’ belief of the respondent’s views

Abstract

Background Closed-ended rating scales are the most used response format for researchers and clinicians to quantify mental states, whereas in natural contexts people communicate with natural language. The reason for using such scales is that they are typically argued to be more precise in measuring mental constructs; however, the respondents’ views as to what best communicates mental states are frequently ignored, which is important for making them comply with assessment. Methods We assessed respondents’ (N = 304) degree of depression using rating scales, descriptive words, selected words, and free text responses and probed the respondents for their preferences concerning the response formats across twelve dimensions related to the precision of communicating their mental states and the ease of responding. This was compared with the clinicians’ (N = 40) belief of the respondent’s view. Results Respondents found free text to be more precise (e.g., precision d’ = .88, elaboration d’ = 2.0) than rating scales, whereas rating scales were rated as easier to respond to (e.g., easier d’ = –.67, faster d’ = –1.13). Respondents preferred the free text responses to a greater degree than rating scales compared to clinicians’ belief of the respondents’ views. Conclusions These findings support previous studies concluding that future assessment of mental health can be aided by computational methods based on text data. Participants prefer an open response format as it allows them to elaborate, be precise, etc., with respect to their mental health issues, although rating scales are viewed as faster and easier.