Comparison of Reliability and Satisfaction Between Face-to-Face and Remote Formats in the Secondary Evaluation of the Student Emotional and Behavioral Characteristics Test:Exploring the Feasibility of Remote Assessments
10.22802/jksbtp.2025.31.3.124
- Author:
Tae Young CHOI
1
;
Hee Jin KIM
;
Jung Yeon MOON
;
Hyang Hee JEONG
;
Yun Kyong JEONG
;
Sang Hyun BAEK
;
Jung Sook KIM
;
Wan Seok SEO
Author Information
1. Department of Psychiatry, Daegu Catholic University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea
- Publication Type:Original Articles
- From:
Journal of the Korean Society of Biological Therapies in Psychiatry
2025;31(3):124-130
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Objectives:The Ministry of Education in South Korea conducts an annual Student Emotional and Behavioral Characteristics Test to facilitate early identification and intervention for mental health issues among adolescents. Students who exceed the screening cut-off undergo a secondary in-depth evaluation. In response to the increasing use of remote services following the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, this study aimed to compare satisfaction and perceived reliability of face-to-face and remote formats of the secondary evaluation as reported by school personnel responsible for conducting the assessments.
Methods:A total of 94 school personnel who oversaw the 2023 secondary evaluations in a metropolitan area participated in an anonymous online survey. The survey assessed their satisfaction with the evaluation period, perceived reliability of the evaluation process, and perceived reliability of the written reports. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on their experience with and preference for each evaluation format. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare differences between groups.
Results:No significant differences were found between the face-to-face and remote groups in satisfaction with the evaluation period or the reliability of the written results. However, the face-to-face format was perceived as significantly more reliable in terms of the evaluation process itself. Among participants who had experience with both formats, the face-to-face format continued to receive higher reliability ratings, particularly among those who preferred face-to-face assessments. In contrast, those who preferred remote assessments showed no significant differences regardless of the format used.
Conclusions:Although some counselors express concern about the reliability of remote assessments, the findings suggest that remote formats can yield comparable results to face-to-face evaluations in terms of satisfaction and outcome reliability. While remote assessments may not fully replace in-person interactions, they can serve as a valid and efficient alternative, particularly for large-scale mental health screenings in school settings. Expanding the use of structured remote evaluations may enhance accessibility and responsiveness in school-based mental health services.
