Comparing Computerized Adaptive Testing-Mental Health (CAT-MH) and Behavioral Health Measure-20 (BHM-20) screening measures in college mental health.
Saved in:
| Title: | Comparing Computerized Adaptive Testing-Mental Health (CAT-MH) and Behavioral Health Measure-20 (BHM-20) screening measures in college mental health. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Kuhn, Julia (AUTHOR), Baldwin, Lauren (AUTHOR), Kebschull, Elizabeth (AUTHOR), Nili, Parissa (AUTHOR), Yu, Jeremy (AUTHOR), Sharma, Bhargava (AUTHOR), Leaks, Broderick (AUTHOR), Sobell, Janet (AUTHOR), Peterson, Bradley S. (AUTHOR), Siegel, Steven J. (AUTHOR), Prince, Mark A. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Journal of American College Health. Jul2026, Vol. 74 Issue 6, p1745-1751. 7p. |
| Subjects: | Competency assessment (Law), Computer adaptive testing, Substance abuse, Early medical intervention, Suicidal ideation, Mental health services, Student health services, Undergraduates, Graduate students, Sex distribution, Questionnaires, Anxiety, Psychological well-being, Race, Eating disorders, Psychometrics, Intraclass correlation, Psychological tests, Medical screening, Comparative studies, Mania, Counseling, Data analysis software, Psychosocial factors, Mental depression, Reliability (Personality trait), Educational attainment, Evaluation |
| Abstract: | Objective: Mental health screening tools support the process for connecting individuals to appropriate care. Participants: This study compared two such tools, the BHM-20 and the CAT-MH, among first-year undergraduate and graduate students. Methods: Students completed the CAT-MH and, if referred to the counseling center, also took the BHM-20. We analyzed four domains: suicidal ideation, depression, anxiety, and mania. Concordance between the tools was examined using intraclass correlations (ICCs) overall and across demographic subgroups. Results: Results showed poor agreement in most domains, with mania performing significantly worse than others. Moderate reliability was observed for anxiety overall, though not among Asian students, and a few subgroup ICCs showed moderate reliability. Overall, the CAT-MH and BHM-20 demonstrated limited agreement in college students. Conclusions: The BHM-20 may be better suited for repeated follow-ups, while the longer CAT-MH provides more comprehensive evaluations useful at intake. Providers should be aware that the two measures may not converge to the same symptom severity levels across domains, which could add confusion for treatment planning and evaluation over time. Further research is needed to refine screening across diverse student groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of American College Health is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Objective: Mental health screening tools support the process for connecting individuals to appropriate care. Participants: This study compared two such tools, the BHM-20 and the CAT-MH, among first-year undergraduate and graduate students. Methods: Students completed the CAT-MH and, if referred to the counseling center, also took the BHM-20. We analyzed four domains: suicidal ideation, depression, anxiety, and mania. Concordance between the tools was examined using intraclass correlations (ICCs) overall and across demographic subgroups. Results: Results showed poor agreement in most domains, with mania performing significantly worse than others. Moderate reliability was observed for anxiety overall, though not among Asian students, and a few subgroup ICCs showed moderate reliability. Overall, the CAT-MH and BHM-20 demonstrated limited agreement in college students. Conclusions: The BHM-20 may be better suited for repeated follow-ups, while the longer CAT-MH provides more comprehensive evaluations useful at intake. Providers should be aware that the two measures may not converge to the same symptom severity levels across domains, which could add confusion for treatment planning and evaluation over time. Further research is needed to refine screening across diverse student groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 07448481 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/07448481.2025.2607141 |
