I have not, and still feel quite ambivalent about embarking on it, should I be called upon to do so. The entire field is in a quandary about teleassessment (as distinct from teletherapy), because very few (that is, none) of the gold standard instruments have been properly validated in this format, and the few instruments that were designed for teleassessment aren't among the stronger ones. The available data on teleassessment also is based on proctored formats, with trained proctors, because the original idea was to increase access to specialists in remote or rural locations--which were presumed to at least have teachers--not to evaluate people in their homes, with all kinds of distractions, possible spoiling of responses one way or the other, and untrained family members as the likely only available proctors. Not to mention inconsistencies and inequities in access to reliable internet.
On the pro side would be pragmatism. If at some point this becomes the only way we can conduct evaluations, then there may be situations where incomplete or flawed data is better than none.
