Table 2.

Comparison of three modes of assessing psychotic symptoms: face-to-face interview, telephone interview, self-report using app items.

	Face-to-face vs. phone calla		Researcher-ratedb vs. app-reported
	ICC		Spearman's rho		Mixed effects modelc
	Coefficient	95% CI	Coefficient	95% CI	Coefficient	95% CI
Delusions	0.96⁎⁎	0.92, 1.01	0.80⁎⁎	0.66, 0.95	0.66⁎	0.14, 1.18
Conceptual disorganization	0.96⁎⁎	0.87, 1.05	–	–	–	–
Hallucinations	0.94⁎⁎	0.86, 1.03	0.87⁎⁎	0.77, 0.97	1.08⁎⁎	0.90, 1.26
Grandiosity	0.96⁎⁎	0.77, 1.16	0.84⁎⁎	0.69, 1.00	1.02⁎⁎	0.85, 1.19
Suspiciousness	0.96⁎⁎	0.91, 1.01	0.85⁎⁎	0.73, 0.97	0.94⁎	0.18, 1.68
PSYRATSd delusions	0.97⁎⁎	0.91, 1.02	–	–	–	–
PSYRATSd hallucinations	0.89⁎⁎	0.70, 1.09	–	–	–	–

^⁎⁎p < 0.001.

^⁎p < 0.05.

^aBased on 14 or 15 cases depending on item.

^bFace-to-face interview, where available, or telephone interview when no face-to-face interview available; based on 27–37 observations from 14 to 15 cases, depending on item.

^cMixed effects model with bootstrapping with app-reported symptoms as the dependent variable, a fixed effect of researcher-rated symptoms and a random effect of participant.

^dPsychotic Symptom Rating Scales.