Use of video conferencing for psychiatric and forensic evaluations

Objective: This study investigated whether the quality of results from video interviews is comparable with that of in-person interviews. Methods: Interrater reliabilities for two video conference interview conditions were compared with those for in-person interviews with the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-Anchored Version and the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication, given to 72 forensic inpatients. The video conditions included in-person and remote interviewers. In the first condition, an in-person interviewer administered the instruments, with remote observation and scoring. The second condition entailed remote administration and an in-person observer. The third condition used an in-person interviewer and observer. Results: Good to excellent reliabilities resulted from all conditions with intraclass correlations of .69 to .82. Conclusions: Results suggest that providers can expect remote interviews to provide clinical information similar to that obtained by inperson interviews.