Mental Health Assessment Methods and Attitudes in Clinical Practices

Accurate mental health assessment is crucial for early detection, intervention and evaluation of mental health disorders. The validity and reliability of mental health assessment methods have been systematically researched for many decades. However, assessment methods used by mental health professionals in clinical settings have rarely been empirically documented. This study examines the extent to which empirically supported assessments 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, as opposed to statistical data combination methods (11%). Although confident in their assessments, the time to carry out assessments varied widely (M = 87 [SD = 108] minutes). Seventy-seven percent 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 empirically supported assessment practices. Predominant reliance on clinical judgment suggests a disconnect between best practices supported by research and everyday clinical practice.