Clinicians' practices and attitudes toward depression assessment: a cross-sectional survey study

Accurate psychological evaluation is crucial for early detection, intervention and evaluation of mental health disorders. The validity and reliability of psychological evaluation methods have been systematically researched for many decades. However, assessment methods used by mental health professionals in clinical settings have not consistently been empirically documented. This study examines the extent to which standardized assessment methods are used in clinical settings, and clinicians' attitudes toward these practices. Clinicians (N = 585) from the U.S. (25%), the U.K. (28%), the Netherlands (18%), Sweden (22%), and other countries (7%) completed an online survey reporting their depression assessment methods. Clinicians reported using many different data collection methods (e.g., unstructured clinical interviews [83%], rating scales [83%]) in various combinations. A majority (80%) primarily employed clinical data combination methods, as opposed to statistical data combination methods (11%). Although they were confident in their assessments, the time to carry out assessments varied widely (M = 87 [SD = 108] minutes). 77% agreed on the importance of standardized, valid, and reliable assessments, and 43% reported interest in receiving AI decision-support. We did not find many significant cross-cultural differences. A majority of clinicians have not fully adopted standardized assessment methods. Predominant reliance on clinical judgment suggests a disconnect between best practices supported by research and everyday clinical practice.