DIGITAL PSYCHODIAGNOSTICS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN CONTEMPORARY PRACTICE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/3041-2021/2025-4-4Keywords:
digital psychodiagnostics, computer-based testing, digital phenotyping, ecological momentary assessment, AI in psychologyAbstract
Digital psychodiagnostics has emerged as a transformative approach in psychological assessment, integrating computer-based testing, mobile applications, ecological momentary assessment, digital phenotyping and AI-assisted tools. This article systematically reviews contemporary research to examine the opportunities and methodological challenges of digital psychological assessment. Through a critical analysis of empirical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, key trends in accessibility, measurement precision, ecological validity and large-scale screening are identified. The findings highlight substantial advantages of digital tools, including remote and asynchronous testing, automated scoring, adaptive assessment, multimodal data collection and enhanced ecological validity. At the same time, the literature underscores significant methodological and ethical challenges, such as ensuring psychometric equivalence with traditional instruments, safeguarding sensitive data, addressing the digital divide, mitigating algorithmic bias in AI-supported assessment and adapting tools for diverse cultural contexts. The review emphasizes that the rapid adoption of digital tools must be accompanied by rigorous validation, ethical oversight and professional training to maximize their potential while minimizing risks. The article concludes that digital psychodiagnostics offers unprecedented opportunities to enhance psychological assessment in both research and practice, but its successful implementation depends on integrating technological innovation with evidence-based methods and ethical responsibility. Future research should focus on standardization, inclusivity and longitudinal evaluation of digital tools across diverse populations.
References
AI in Mental Health: A Review of Technological Advancements and Ethical Issues in Psychiatry / Poudel U. et al. Issues Mental Health Nursing. 2025. Vol. 46. Issue 7. Pp. 693–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2025.2502943.
Artificial Intelligence in Mental Health Care: Opportunities, Challenges, and Ethical Dilemmas / Rzyczniok P. et al. International Journal of Innovative Technologies in Social Science. 2025. Vol. 2. No 3(47). https://doi.org/10.31435/ijitss.3(47).2025.3529.
Bennett R. E., Zhang M. (2016). Validity and automated scoring. Technology and testing / Ed.: F. Drasgow. Abingdon: Routledge. Pp. 142–173.
Elements of adaptive testing / Eds.: Van der Linden W. J., Glas C. A. W. New York: Springer, 2010. 462 p.
Fairburn C. G., Patel V. The impact of digital technology on psychological treatments and their dissemination. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2017. Vol. 88. Pp. 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2016.08.012.
Gwaltney C.J., Shields A.L., Shiffman S. Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value Health. 2008. Vol. 11. Issue 2. Pp. 322-333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00231.x.
Insel T.R. Digital Phenotyping: Technology for a New Science of Behavior. JAMA. 2017. Vol. 318. Issue 13. Pp. 1215–1216. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.11295.
Integration of Digital Tools Into Community Mental Health Care Settings That Serve Young People: Focus Group Study / Knapp A.A. et al. JMIR Mental Health. 2021. Vol. 8. Issue 8. Article e27379. https://doi.org/10.2196/27379.
Internet-based vs. face-to-face cognitive behavior therapy for psychiatric and somatic disorders: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis / Carlbring P. et al. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. 2018. Vol. 47. Issue 1. Pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2017.1401115.
Kyllonen P. C. Advances in measuring “hard-to-measure” skills. Contemporary perspectives on research in educational assessment / Ed.: M. S. Khine. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, Inc., 2020. Pp. 67–91.
Luxton, D. D., Nelson, E.-L., & Maheu, M. M. A practitioner’s guide to telemental health: How to conduct legal, ethical, and evidence-based telepractice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2016. 176 p.
Machine learning and artificial intelligence research for patient benefit: 20 critical questions on transparency, replicability, ethics, and effectiveness / Vollmer S. et al. BMJ. 2020. Vol. 368. Article l6927. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6927.
Martinez-Martin N., Kreitmair K. Ethical Issues for Direct-to-Consumer Digital Psychotherapy Apps: Addressing Accountability, Data Protection, and Consent. JMIR Mental Health. 2018. Vol. 5. Issue 2. Article e32. https://doi.org/10.2196/mental.9423.
New Tools for New Research in Psychiatry: A Scalable and Customizable Platform to Empower Data Driven Smartphone Research / Torous J., Kiang M.V., Lorme J., Onnela J.P. JMIR Mental Health. 2016. Vol. 3. Issue 2. Article e16. https://doi.org/10.2196/mental.5165.
The Current State and Validity of Digital Assessment Tools for Psychiatry: Systematic Review / Martin-Key N.A. et al. JMIR Mental Health. 2022. Vol. 9. Issue 3. Article e32824. https://doi.org/10.2196/32824.
Three problems with current digital mental health research аnd three things we can do about them / Mohr D. C. et al. Psychiatric Services. 2017. Vol. 68. Issue 5. Pp. 427–429. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201600541.
Shiffman S., Stone A.A., Hufford M.R. Ecological momentary assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 2008. Vol. 4. Pp. 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415.
Wright A. G. C., Hopwood C. J. Advancing the assessment of dynamic psychological processes. Assessment. 2016. Vol. 23. Issue 4. Pp. 399–403.
