Comparing Emotional Valence from Human Quantitative Ratings and Qualitative Narrative Data on Using Artificial Intelligence to Reduce Caregiving Disparity

We compared emotional valence scores as determined via machine vs human ratings from a survey conducted from April to May 2024 on perceived attitudes on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for African American family caregivers of persons with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) (N=627). The participants answered risks, benefits and possible solutions qualitatively on the open-ended questions on ten AI use cases, followed by a rating of each. Then, we applied three machine learning algorithms to detect emotional valence scores from the text data and compared their mean to the human ratings. The mean emotional valence scores from text data via natural language processing (NLP) were negative regardless of algorithms (AFINN: -1.61 ± 2.76, Bing: -1.40 ± 1.52, and Syuzhet: -0.67 ± 1.14), while the mean score of human ratings was positive (2.30 ± 1.48, p=0.0001). Our findings have implications for the practice of survey design using self-rated instruments and open-ended questions in an NLP era.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Studies in health technology and informatics
Published
2025-04-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3233/shti250036
Primary Topic
Health disparities and outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparing Emotional Valence from Human Quantitative Ratings and Qualitative Narrative Data on Using Artificial Intelligence to Reduce Caregiving Disparity

Melissa Patterson, Tess D. Pottinger, Niki Davis, Sunmoo Yoon et al.
Studies in health technology and informatics
Health disparities and outcomes
article

Comparing Emotional Valence from Human Quantitative Ratings and Qualitative Narrative Data on Using Artificial Intelligence to Reduce Caregiving Disparity

Melissa Patterson, Tess D. Pottinger, Niki Davis, Sunmoo Yoon, Dante Tipiani, Robert Crupi, Frederick F. Sun, Milea Kim
article en

Abstract

We compared emotional valence scores as determined via machine vs human ratings from a survey conducted from April to May 2024 on perceived attitudes on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for African American family caregivers of persons with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) (N=627). The participants answered risks, benefits and possible solutions qualitatively on the open-ended questions on ten AI use cases, followed by a rating of each. Then, we applied three machine learning algorithms to detect emotional valence scores from the text data and compared their mean to the human ratings. The mean emotional valence scores from text data via natural language processing (NLP) were negative regardless of algorithms (AFINN: -1.61 ± 2.76, Bing: -1.40 ± 1.52, and Syuzhet: -0.67 ± 1.14), while the mean score of human ratings was positive (2.30 ± 1.48, p=0.0001). Our findings have implications for the practice of survey design using self-rated instruments and open-ended questions in an NLP era.

Studies in health technology and informaticsVol. 323
NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital (US), Columbia University (US), Clemson University (US)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 87%
Health disparities and outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Comparing Emotional Valence from Human Quantitative Ratings and Qualitative Narrative Data on Using Artificial Intelligence to Reduce Caregiving Disparity — Melissa Patterson, Tess D. Pottinger, et al. · Studies in health technology and informatics (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS