Computerized Interpretation

Paul Meehl (1954) argued that the actuarial/statistical predictions (that is the use of objective facts or formulae) were more valid than predictions based on subjective or clinical decisions and subsequent research has supported this viewactuarial decisions are more accurate than subjective approaches.

Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence. Minneapolis, MN : University of Minnesota Press.

Over the past fifty years, computers have become an important method for processing test results in psychological assessment. Initially the were limited to scoring, however, in more recent decades computer-based test administration and interpretation has grown substantially in their scope and popularity. Computers can provide an objective, reliable, and cost-efficient way to administer, score, and interpret psychological tests.

Following are some Important Dates in computer-based test interpretation:

• 1954: Meehl's article on clinical versus statistical prediction establishing the actuarial prediction approach in psychology (Meehl, 1954).
• 1955: Empirical validation of code types (Halbower, 1955).
• 1962: Development of the first computer interpretation system at the Mayo Clinic by John Pearson and Wendell Swenson, ( Pearson, Swenson, et al., 1965; Rome, Swenson, et al., 1962)
• 1963: Marks & Seeman's actuarial prediction providing an interpretive cookbook for MMPI codes with outpatients (MMPI cookbook) (Marks & Seemen, 1963).
• 1965: Gilberstadt & Duker (MMPI cookbook) for inpatients. (Gilberstadt & Duker, 1965).
• 1966: Strength of actuarial methods in psychological assessment (Sines, 1966)
• 1967: Development of the first Narrative MMPI interpretive program with Roche Laboratories (Fowler, 1967)
• 1982: Minnesota Report published by National Computer Systems.

References:

• Butcher, J. N., Perry, J. N., & Atlis, M. M. (2000). Validity and utility of computer-based test interpretation. Psychological Assessment, 12, 6-18.
• Butcher, J. N., Perry, J., & Hahn, J. (2004). Computers in Clinical Assessment: Historical developments, present status, and future challenges. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60, 331-345.
• Gilberstadt, H. D. J. (1965). A handbook for clinical and actuarial MMPI interpretation. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.
• Halbower, C. C. (1955). A comparison of actuarial versus clinical prediction to classes discriminated by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Dissertation Abstracts International, 15, 1115.
• Marks, P. A. Seeman, W. (1963). The actuarial description of personality: an atlas for use with the MMPI. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.
• Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Pearson, J. S., Swenson, W. M., Rome, H. P., Mataya, P., & Brannick, T. L. (1965). Development of a computer system for scoring and interpreting the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory in a medical setting. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 126, 682692.
• Rome, H. P., Swenson, W. M., Mataya, P., McCarthy, C. E., Pearson, J. S., Keating, F. R., & Hathaway, S. R. (1962). Symposium on automation techniques in personality assessment. Proceedings of the Staff Meetings of the Mayo Clinic, 37, 61-82.
• Sines, J. O. (1966). Actuarial methods as appropriate strategy for the validation of diagnostic tests Psychological Review, 71, 517-523.

Listed below are References for the use of computers in psychological personality assessment.

• Butcher, J. N., Perry, J. N., & Atlis, M. M. (2000). Validity and utility of computer-based test interpretation. Psychological Assessment, 12, 6-18.
• Allard, G., Butler, J., Faust, D., & Shea, M. T. (1995). Errors in hand scoring objective personality tests: The case of the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire -- Revised (PDQ--R). Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 304-308.
• American Psychological Association (1986). American Psychological Association guidelines for computer-based tests and interpretations. Washington , DC : Author.
• American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073.
• Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.).( New York: Macmillan)
• Atlis, M. M., Hahn, J., & Butcher, J. N. (2005). Computer-based assessment with the MMPI-2. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.). MMPI-2: The practioner's guide (p. 445-476). Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association.
• Baillargeon, J. & Danis, C. (1984). Barnum meets the computer: A critical test. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 415-419.
• Ben-Porath, Y. S., Slutske, W. S., & Butcher, J. N. (1989). A real-data simulation of computerized administration of the MMPI. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1, 18-22.
• Ben-Porath, Y. S., Waller, N. G., Slutske, W. S., & Butcher, J. N. (1988). A comparison of two methods for adaptive administration of MMPI-2 content scales. Paper presented at the 96th annual meeting of the American Psychological Association. August, 1988, Atlanta , GA.
• Biskin, B. H., & Kolotkin, R. C. (1977). Effects of computerized administration on scores on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 543-549.
• Blouin, A. G., Perez, E. L., & Blouin, J. H. (1988). Computerized administration of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule. Psychiatry Research, 23, 335-344.
• Bresolin, M. J. (1984). A comparative study of computer administration of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Loyola University , Chicago .
• Buchanan, T. & Smith, J. L. (1999). Using the internet for psychological research: Personality testing on the World Wide Web. British Journal of Psychology, 90, 125-144.
• Buchanan, T. (2002). Online assessment: Desirable or dangerous? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33 (2), 148-154.
• Butcher, J. N. (Ed). (1987). Computerized Psychological Assessment. New York: Basic Books.
• Butcher, J. N. (1987). The use of computers in psychological assessment: An overview of practices and issues. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.) Computerized psychological assessment: A practitioner's guide. New York : Basic Books.
• Butcher, J. N. (1990). The Minnesota Report: Adult Clinical System. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
• Butcher, J. N. (1994). Psychological assessment by computer: Potential gains and problems. Psychiatric Annals, 20, 20-24.
• Butcher, J. N. (1995a). Clinical Use of Computer-Based Personality Test Reports Chapter in J. N. Butcher (Ed). (1995). Clinical Personality assessment: Practical approaches. New York : Oxford University Press.
• Butcher, J. N. (1995b). User's guide for the MMPI-2 Minnesota Report: Personnel system. Minneapolis: National Computer Systems.
• Butcher, J. N. (1997). Use of computer-based personality test reports in treatment planning. In J. N. Butcher (Ed) Personality assessment in managed health care: Using the MMPI-2 in treatment planning, (p. 153-172). New York : Oxford University Press.
• Butcher, J. N. (1997). User's guide for the MMPI-2 Minnesota Report: Forensic system. Minneapolis, National Computer Systems.
• Butcher, J. N. (2000). Dynamics of personality test responses: The empiricist's manifesto revisited. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(3), 375-386.
• Butcher, J. N. (2001). Assessment with the MMPI-2: Decisions in diverse applications. Oral presentation, American Psychological Association Convention, San Francisco , August 2001.
• Butcher, J. N. (2002). How to use computer-based reports. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), Clinical personality assessment: Practical approaches (2nd ed.). New York : Oxford University Press.
• Butcher, J. N. (2003a). Computer-based psychological assessment. In J. R. Graham and J. Naglieri (Eds.) Comprehensive handbook of psychology, Volume 10: Assessment psychology. (p. 141-164). New York : Wiley.
• Butcher, J. N. (2005). The Minnesota Report: Adult Clinical System – Revised (4th Ed.). Minneapolis , MN : Regents of the University of Minnesota .
• Butcher, J. N., Keller, L., & Bacon, S. (1985). Current developments and future directions in computerized personality assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 803-815.
• Butcher, J. N. (1978). Present status of computerized MMPI reporting devices. Review in O. Buros (Ed.), Eighth mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park , New Jersey : Gryphon Press.
• Butcher, J. N. (1978). Automated Psychological Assessment. Review in O. Buros (Ed.), Eighth mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park , New Jersey : Gryphon Press.
• Butcher, J. N. (1978). Behaviordyne Psychodiagnostic Laboratory Service. Review in O. Buros (Ed.), Eighth mental measurements yearbook . Highland Park , New Jersey : Gryphon Press.
• Butcher, J. N. (1978). The Caldwell Report. Review in O. Buros (Ed.), Eighth mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park , New Jersey : Gryphon Press.
• Butcher, J. N. (1978). Institute of Clinical Analysis - MMPI Report. Review in O. Buros (Ed.), Eighth mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park , New Jersey : Gryphon Press.
• Butcher, J. N. (1978). The Psychological Corporation/National Computer Systems MMPI Reporting Service. Review in O. Buros (Ed.), Eighth mental measurements yearbook . Highland Park , New Jersey : Gryphon Press.
• Butcher, J. N. (1978). The Roche Psychiatric Service Institute: MMPI Interpretation System. Review in O. Buros (Ed.), Eighth mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park , New Jersey : Gryphon Press.
• Butcher, J. N., Berah, E., Ellersten, B., Miach, P., Lim, J., Nezami, E., Pancheri, P., Derksen, J., & Almagor, M. (1998). Objective personality assessment: Computer-based MMPI-2 interpretation in international clinical settings. (pp. 277-312). In C. Belar (Ed.) Comprehensive clinical psychology: Sociocultural and individual differences. New York : Elsevier.
• Butcher, J. N. & Hostetler (1990). Abbreviating MMPI Item Administration: Past Problems and Prospects for the MMPI-2. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 12-22.
• Butcher, J. N., Keller, L. S., & Bacon, S. F. (1985). Current developments and future directions in computerized personality assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 803-815.
• Butcher, J. N., Perry, J. N., & Atlis, M. M. (2000). Validity and utility of computer-based test interpretation. Psychological Assessment, 12, 6-18.
• Butcher, J. N., Perry, J., & Hahn, J. (2004). Computers in Clinical Assessment: Historical developments, present status, and future challenges. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60, 331-345.
• Caldwell, A. B. (1970). Recent advances in automated interpretation of the MMPI. Paper presented at the 5th Annual Symposium on Recent Developments in the Use of the MMPI, Mexico City , Mexico .
• Caldwell, A. B. (1978). Caldwell Report - An MMPI interpretation. In Buros, O. K. (Ed.). The eighth mental measurements yearbook (Vol. 1), Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press .
• Caldwell, A. B. (1996). Forensic questions and answers on the MMPI/MMPI-2. Los Angeles: Caldwell Reports.
• Carr, A. C., Ghosh, A., & Ancill, R. J. (1983). Can a computer take a psychiatric history? Psychological Medicine, 13, 151-158.
• Carr, A. C., Wilson, S. L., Ghosh, A., Ancil, R. J., & Woods, R. T. (1982). Automated testing of geriatric patients using a microcomputer-based system. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 28, 297-300.
• Carson, R. C. (1990). Assessment: What role is the assessor? Journal of Personality, 54, 435-445.
• Choca, J., & Morris, J. (1992). Administering the Category Test by computer: Equivalence of results. The Clinical Neurologist, 6, 9-15.
• Davies, M. F. (1997). Private self-consciousness and the acceptance of personality feedback: Confirmatory processing in the evaluation of general vs. specific self-information. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 78-92.
• Davis, R. N. (1999). Web-based administration of a personality questionnaire: Comparison with traditional methods. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 572-577.
• Downey , R. B., Sinnett, E. R. & Seeberger, W. (1998). The changing face of MMPI practice. Psychological Reports, 83 (3, Pt 2), 1267-1272.
• Duthie, B. (1985). MMPI computerized interpretation manual: Subsection 3.2. Wakefield, RI: Applied Innovations.
• Erdman, H. P., Klein, M. H., & Greist, J. H. (1985). Direct patient computer interviewing. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 760-773.
• Erdman, H. P., Klein, M. H., Greist, J. H., Skare, s. S., Husted, J. J., Robins, L. N., Helzer, J. E., Goldring, E., Hamburger, M., & Miller, J. P. (1992). A comparison of two computer-administered versions of the NMIH Diagnostic Interview schedule. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 26, 85-95.
• Eyde, L., Kowal, D. M., Fishburne, F. J. (1991). The validity of computer-based test interpretations of the MMPI. In T. B. Gutkin & S. L. Wise (ed.), The computer and the decision-making process (pp. 75-123). Hillsdale , New Jersey : Lawrence Erbaum Associates.
• Finger, M. S. & Ones, D. S. (1999). Psychometric equivalence of the computer and booklet forms of the MMPI: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 11, 58-66.
• Finn, S. & Kamphuis, S. (1995). What a clinician should know about base rates. In J. N. Butcher (Eds.) Clinical personality assessment: Practical approaches, p. 224-235. New York : Oxford University Press.
• Finney, J. C. (1966). Programmed interpretation of MMPI and CPI. Archives of General Psychiatry, 15(1), 75-81.
• First, M. B. (1994). Computer-assisted assessment of DSM-III-R diagnosis. Psychiatric Annals, 24, 25-29.
• Forbey, J. D., Handel, R. W., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2000). A real-data simulation of computerized adaptive administration of the MMPI-A. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(1), 83-96.
• Fowler, R. D. (1966). The MMPI notebook: A guide to the clinical use of the automated MMPI. Nutley , NJ : Roche Psychiatric Service Institute.
• Fowler, R. D. (1968). MMPI Computer interpretation for college counseling. Journal of Psychology. 69(2), 201-207.
• Fowler, R. D. (1969). Automated interpretation of personality test data. In J. N. Butcher (ed.) MMPI: Research developments and clinical applications. New York : McGraw-Hill.
• Fowler, R. D. (1987). Developing a computer-based test interpretation system. In J. N. Butcher (Ed). Computerized psychological assessment. (pp. 50-63). New York : Basic Books.
• Fowler, R. D., & Miller, E. (1969). Computer interpretation of the MMPI: Its use in clinical practice. Archives of General Psychiatry, 21, 502-508.
• Gershon, R. C. (2005). Computer adaptive testing. Journal of Applied Measurement, 6 , 109-127.
• Greist, J. H., Klein, M. H., Erdman, H. P., Bires, J. K., Bass, S. M., Machtinger, P. E., & Kresge, D. G. (1987). Comparison of computer- and interviewer-administered versions of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 38, 1304-1310.
• Groth-Marnat, G. (2000). Visions of clinical assessment: Then, now, and a brief history of the future. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(3), 349-365.
• Guastello, S. J., Guastello, D., D., & Craft, L., L. (1989). Assessment of the Barnum Effect in computer-based test interpretations. The Journal of Psychology, 123, 477-484.
• Guastello, S. J. & Rieke, M. L. (1990). The Barnum effect and validity of computer-based test interpretations: The Human Resource Development Report. Psychological Assessment, 2, 186-190.
• Handel, R. W., Ben-Porath, Y. S., and Watt, M. (1999). Computerized adaptive assessment with the MMPI-2 in a clinical setting. Psychological Assessment, 11, 369-380.
• Harrington, A. R. (2000). The relative validity of computer-based interpretations of the MMPI-2. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 60 (12-B), p. 6364.
• Harris, W. G., Niedner, D., Feldman, C., Fink, A., & Johnson, J. N. (1981). An on-line interpretive Rorschach approach: Using Exner's comprehensive system. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 13, 588-591.
• Hile, M. G., & Adkins, R. E. (1997). Do substance abuse and mental health clients prefer automated assessments? Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 29, 146-150.
• Hofer, P. J. & Green, B. F. (1985). The challenge of competence and creativity in computerized psychological testing. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 826-838.
• Holden, R. R., & Hickman, D. (1987). Computerized versus standard administration of the Jenkins Activity Survey (Form T). Journal of Human Stress, 13(4), 175-179.
• Honaker, L. M., Harrell, T. H., & Buffaloe, J. D. (1988). Equivalency of Microtest computer MMPI administration for standard and special scales. Computers in Human Behavior, 4, 323-337.
• Jemelka, R. P., Wiegand, G. A., Walker, E. A., & Trupin, E. W. (1992). Computerized offender assessment: A validation study. Psychological Assessment, 4, 138-144.
• Kleinmuntz, B. (1964). MMPI decision rules for the identification of college maladjustment: A digital computer approach. Psychological Monographs: General & Applied. 77(4), 1-22.
• Labeck, L., J., Johnson, J. H., & Harris, W., G. (1983). Validity of a computerized on-line MMPI interpretive system. Journal of clinical Psychology, 39(3), 412-416.
• Lachar, D.(1974a). The MMPI: Clinical assessment and automated interpretation. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
• Lachar, D. (1974b). Accuracy and generalizability of an automated MMPI interpretation system. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 267-273.
• Lambert, M. E., Andrews, R. H., Rylee, K., & Skinner, J. (1987). Equivalence of computerized and traditional MMPI administration with substance abusers. Computers in Human Behavior, 3(2), 139-143.
• Lushene, R. E., O'Neil, H. H., & Dunn, T. (1974). Equivalent validity of a completely computerized MMPI. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 353-361.
• Maddux, C. D. & Johnson, L. (1998). Computer assisted assessment. In H. B. Vance (Ed.). Psychological assessment in children (2nd Edition) (pp. 87-105). New York : John Wiley.
• Matarazzo, J. D. (1986). Computerized clinical psychological interpretations: Unvalidated plus all mean and no sigma. American Psychologist, 41, 14-24.
• Mathisen, K. S., Evans, F. J., & Meyers, K. M. (1987). Evaluation of the computerized version of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 38, 1311-1315.
• McMinn, M. R., Buchanan, T., Ellens, B. M. & Ryan, M. (1999). Technology, professional practice, and ethics: Survey findings and implications. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30 (2), 165-172.
• Merten, T. & Ruch, W. (1996). A comparison of computerized and conventional administration of the German versions of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and the Carroll Rating Scale for depression. Personality & Individual Differences, 20(3), 281-291.
• Miller, D. A., Johnson, J. H., Klingler, D. E., Williams, T. A., & Giannetti, R. A. (1977). Design for an on-line computerized system for MMPI interpretation. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 9, 117-122.
• Moreland, K. L. (1985a). Computer-assisted psychological assessment in 1986: A practical guide. Computers in Human Behavior, 1, 221-233.
• Moreland, K. L. (1985b). Landmarks in computer-assisted psychological assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 748-759.
• Moreland, K. L. (1985c). Validation of computer-based interpretations: Problems and prospects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 816-825.
• Moreland, K. L. (1987). Computerized psychological assessment: What's available. In J. N. Butcher (ed.), Computerized Psychological Assessment: A practitioner's guide (pp. 64-86). New York : Basic Books.
• Moreland, K. L., & Onstad, J. A. (1987). Validity of Millon's computerized interpretation system of the MCMI: A controlled study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 113-114.
• National Computer Systems (1982). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory: User's guide for the Minnesota Report. Minneapolis : National Computer Systems.
• Pasveer, K. A. & Ellard, J. H. (1998). The making of a personality inventory: Help from the WWW. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 30, 309-313.
• Pearson, J. S., Rome , H. P., Swenson, W. M., Mataya, P., & Brannick, T. L. (1965). Development of computer system for scoring and interpretation of MMPI in a medical clinic. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, 126, 684-692.
• Peters, L., & Andrews, G. (1995). Procedural validity of the computerized version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI-Auto) in the anxiety disorders. Psychological Medicine, 25, 1269-1280.
• Pinsoneault, T. B. (1996). Equivalency of computer-assisted and paper-and-pencil administered versions of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - 2. Computers in Human Behavior, 12, 291-300.
• Prince, R. J. & Guastello, S. J. (1990). The Barnum effect in a computerized Rorschach interpretation system. Journal of Psychology, 124, 217-222.
• Rome, H. P., Swenson, W. M., Mataya, P., McCarthy, C. E., Pearson, J. S., Keating, F. R., & Hathaway, S. R. (1962). Symposium on automation technics in personality assesment. Proceedings of the Staff Meetings of the Mayo Clinic, 37, 61-82.
• Roper, B. L., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Butcher, J. N. (1995). Comparability and validity of computerized adaptive testing with the MMPI-2. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65, 358-371.
• Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (2003). Internet-based personality testing: Equivalence of measures and assesses' perceptions and reactions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(2/3), 194-205.
• Schuldberg, D. (1988). The MMPI is less sensitive to the automated testing format than it is to repeated testing: Item and scale effects. Computers in Human Behaviors, 4, 285-298.
• Shores, A. & Carstairs, J. R. (1998). Accuracy of the Minnesota Report in identifying fake-good and fake-bad response sets. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 12, 101-106.
• Simms, L. J., & Clark, L. A. (2005). Validation of a computerized adaptive version of the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP). Psychological Assessment, 17 , 28-43.
• Snyder, D. K., Widiger, T. A., & Hoover , D. W. (1990). Methodological considerations in validating computer-based test interpretations: Controlling for response bias. Psychological Assessment, 2, 470-477.
• Styles, I. (1991). Clinical assessment and computerized testing. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 35, 133-150.
• Sukigara, M. (1996). Equivalence between computer and booklet administrations of the new Japanese version of the MMPI. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 56(4), 570-584.
• Vale, C. D., & Keller, L. S. (1987). Developing expert computer systems to interpret psychological tests. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), Computerized Psychological Assessment: A practitioner's guide (pp. 64-83). New York : Basic Books.
• Waller, N. G., & Reise, S. P. (1989). Computerized adaptive personality assessment: An illustration with the Absorption scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1051-1058.
• Ware, J. E., Gandek, B., Sinclair, S. J., Bjorner, J. B. (2005). Item response theory and computerized adaptive testing implications for outcomes measurement in rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Psychology, 50 , 71-78.
• Watkins, M. W. & McDermott, P. A. (1991). Psychodiagnostic computing: From interpretive programs to expert systems. In Terry R. Gutkin & Steven L. Wise (Eds.) The computer and the decision-making process (p. 11-42). Hillsdale , New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Weiss, D. J. & Vale, C. D. (1987). Computerized adaptive testing for measuring ability and other psychological variables. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), Computerized psychological assessment (pp. 325-343). New York : Basic Books.
• Williams, J. E. & Weed, N. C. (2004). Relative user ratings of MMPI-2 computer-based test interpretations. Assessment,11, 316-329.
• Wilson, F. R., Genco, K. T., & Yager, G. G. (1985). Assessing the equivalence of paper-and-pencil vs. computerized tests: Demonstration of a promising methodology. Computers in Human Behavior, 1, 265-275.
• Wyndowe, J. (1987). The microcomputerized Diagnostic Interview Schedule: Clinical use in an outpatient setting. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 32, 93-99.