4. Discussion
This study evaluated the equivalence of the embodiments to the CES-D, GAD-7, and K6 evaluated in smartphone and paper versions. The results suggest that CES-D and K6 have good equivalence, with ICCThe Cronbach’s alpha for the GAD-7 on smartphones was 0.80 (95% CI 0.75–0.86), indicating that it has the same internal consistency as the GAD-7 on paper (0.80; 95% CI 0.75–0.86). McDonald’s omega values for the GAD-7 on a smartphone were also 0.83 (95% CI 0.76–0.88), and they were 0.83 (95% CI 0.76–0.88) for the GAD-7 on paper, indicating strong internal consistency. However, the ICCAs far as we could find, no studies have tested the equivalence of the electronic and paper versions of the K6 and GAD-7. However, previous studies have examined the equivalence of electronic and paper versions of the CES-D. A study of 2400 teachers in Taiwan, which tested the equivalence of the Internet-based CES-D and paper-based CES-D, found little difference in potential means and concluded that Internet-based CES-D is a promising alternative to paper-based CES-D [This study has several limitations. First, the study participants were a relatively young population, aged 18–22 years. Therefore, the results of this study may not apply to other age groups. Second, the influence of the carryover effects cannot be ignored. In a crossover design, a carryover effect may occur if the interval between the first and second evaluations is short. We tried to reduce the carryover effect as much as possible by keeping the interval between the first and second evaluations to 1 week. In fact, no statistically significant differences in the carryover effects were found in this study. However, given the lack of consensus on the ideal implementation interval when testing the equivalence of PROs [