1-2 Pages. APA Format. Masters Level. Review Attachment

ashley772

SUICIDERISK.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >1-2 Pages. APA Format. Masters Level. Review Attachment

Article

A Review of Psychometrically Tested Instruments Assessing Suicide Risk in Adults

Elizabeth Kreuze 1

and Dorian A. Lamis 2

Abstract

Objective: Identify suicidal ideation and behavior screening instruments with the

strongest psychometric properties, using the Interpersonal-Psychological Theory of

Suicidal Behavior.

Methods: Information databases PsycINFO and PubMed were systematically

searched, and articles evaluating the psychometric properties of instruments assess-

ing suicidal ideation and behavior (n¼2,238) were reviewed. International popula-

tions and articles with diverse methodologies were integrated.

Results: Review of records resulted in the inclusion of 51 articles that assessed 16

instruments. The majority of studies used the English language version (68.6%) and

included U.S. populations (65.7%). However, global populations and non-English lan-

guage versions were also represented.

Conclusion: More diverse population representation, and non-English versions of

instruments, is required to improve generalizability of assessment measures.

Including underrepresented groups and non-English instruments will promote cul-

turally and linguistically sensitive instruments that may better assess suicide risk in

diverse populations.

OMEGA—Journal of Death and

Dying

2018, Vol. 77(1) 36–90

! The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0030222816688151

journals.sagepub.com/home/ome

1 Medical University of South Carolina, College of Nursing, Charleston, SC, USA

2 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA,

USA

Corresponding Author:

Elizabeth Kreuze, Medical University of South Carolina, College of Nursing, 99 Jonathan Lucas St,

Charleston, SC 29425, USA.

Email: [email protected]

https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/journals-permissions

https://doi.org/10.1177/0030222816688151

journals.sagepub.com/home/ome

Keywords

psychometrics, instrument, screening, suicidal ideation, and suicide

Suicide occurs in all regions of the world, in both high- and low-income coun- tries, making it a major public health concern worldwide (World Health Organization [WHO], 2014). Specifically, every 40 seconds, an individual some- where in the world dies by suicide, which translates to over 800,000 annual global deaths (WHO, 2014). Suicide represents 50% and 71% of all violent global deaths in men and women, respectively (WHO, 2014). Life expectancy is an important indicator of a population’s health (Braveman, Egerter, & Mockenhaupt, 2011), and individuals who experience suicidal ideation have disproportionately lower life expectancies, compared with nonsuicidal individuals.

Suicide is responsible for these many years of potential life lost (Center for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2013), in part, because it is a multifa- ceted public health crisis. Suicidal ideation involves a complex interplay between individual, relationship, community, and societal factors (CDC, 2014). These complex factors make predicting suicide risk onerous, and this further potenti- ates vulnerability. Suicide risk is dynamic, fluctuating over time concurrent with both external events and internal experiences, which can change rapidly (Bryan & Rudd, 2012). Although prediction is multifarious, using a theoretical frame- work to guide the identification of suicide assessment instruments with the strongest psychometric properties may partially increase the ability to recognize individuals at high risk of suicide.

Theoretical Framework

Joiner’s (2005) Interpersonal-Psychological Theory of Suicidal Behavior (IPTS) was used to guide this review. The theoretical definition of suicide involves desire and ability to enact lethal means. Specifically, the individual will not die by suicide unless she or he has both the desire to die by suicide and the ability to do so. Suicidal desire, according to the theory, emerges when two interpersonal states—perceived burdensomeness (i.e., belief that one’s existence burdens others, and the perception that one’s death is worth more than one’s life to others) and thwarted belongingness (i.e., sense of alienation, disconnection, and social isolation)—are perceived as hopeless and experienced simultaneously. The third component of the IPTS is acquired capability, which refers to habitu- ation to pain and fear, enabling one to more readily engage in self-harm. Specifically, Joiner (2005) posits that in addition to experiencing simultaneous perceived burdensomeness and thwarted belongingness, the capability to initiate suicidal behavior is acquired via exposure to painful and fear-provoking events (e.g., self-injury, previous suicide attempt, physical violence, combat situation)

Kreuze and Lamis 37

that habituate individuals to the pain and fear associated with death. Repeated exposure to these painful experiences creates the ability for lethal self-injurious behavior, in part by increasing the tolerance for pain and poten- tiating a fearlessness of death. As a result, there is a three-way interaction between perceived burdensomeness, low belongingness, and the acquired cap- ability for suicide.

Methods

The Whittemore and Knafl (2005) methodology guided the literature search and was used to enhance the rigor of this review. Identification of suicide risk assess- ment instruments with newly evaluated psychometric properties provided boundaries for the systematic literature search. Data reduction, data compari- son, conclusion drawing, and verification permitted thorough interpretation and synthesis of recent psychometric property evidence.

Information databases PsycINFO and PubMed were systematically searched with AND in addition to OR, in combination with the following medical subject heading terms and keywords: suicide, suicidal ideation, self-injurious behavior, self-harm, self-injury, suicide attempted, suicidal behaviors, risk assessment, risk, instrument, scale, questionnaires, psychiatric status rating scales, psychological tests, mental status schedule, screen, mental health, interpersonal psychological theory, interpersonal theory of suicide, psychometric, psychometrics, measure, and validation. The search strategy is further detailed in Figure 1, using the modified PRIMSA flow diagram (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & The PRISMA Group, 2009).

Inclusion criteria for information databases included: peer-reviewed articles, suicidal ideation or suicidal behavior risk instrument, depression screen with a designated suicide item, sample with adults 18 years and older, and psychometric properties (i.e., reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity, or factor analysis) evaluated within the past 6 years (2010 to 2015). Year limits were enacted to permit identification of current suicide risk screening trends and newly evaluated psychometrics. International articles with country- and language-specific instru- ment versions, which included sample psychometric properties, were included to promote evaluation of the populations screened by instrument. Additionally, articles with diverse methodologies were included and integrated into the review, as suggested by Whittemore and Knafl (2005).

Exclusion criteria for information databases included the following: articles not written in the English language, reviews and reports, articles published prior to 2010, and articles reiterating established psychometric properties but not reevaluating psychometric properties in new samples. Given our focus on newly evaluated suicide risk instrument psychometric properties in adult popu- lations, adolescent and pediatric samples (i.e., <18 years) and adolescent-specific suicide risk instruments were excluded. Further, because pregnancy-related

38 OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying 77(1)

depression was not a particular focus, pregnancy-specific screening instruments were excluded, in part because the percentage of nonpregnant adults far exceeds the percentage of pregnant women at any given time. Finally, because the review focuses on screening during adulthood, geriatric-specific instruments were also excluded given that they are only applicable to a particular segment of the adult population only (i.e., older adults).

Results

Systematic searches resulted in the inclusion of 51 articles that assessed the psy- chometric properties of 16 suicide risk assessment instruments. Research partici- pant descriptions, theoretical framework information, sample psychometric

Figure 1. Modified PRISMA Flow Diagram (Moher et al., 2009).

Kreuze and Lamis 39

properties, and Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine (2011) levels of evi- dence are detailed in Appendix A and synthesized below.

1. The Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation (BSSI; Beck & Steer, 1991) is a 21-item self-report measure with five screening items. Endorsement of any suicidal ideation screening items requires the administration of an additional 14 items to further assess the severity of suicidal ideation. The remaining 14 items identify passive ideation, active ideation, desire to die, suicidal plans, access to means, and willingness to share suicidal desire with others. The final two items assess the number of previous attempts and the degree of desire to die during the most recent attempt. Total scores assessing suicidal ideation range from 0 to 38.

During original scale development, in studies of psychiatric inpatients, the BSSI demonstrated high concurrent validity coefficients with the SSI (p< .001; Beck & Steer, 1991), was positively correlated with having made a suicide attempt (p< .001; Pinniti, Steer, Rissmiller, Nelson, & Beck, 2002), demonstrated high internal consistency (coefficient alpha .96 to .97; Beck & Steer, 1991; Pinniti et al., 2002), had 1-week test–retest reliabilities ranging from .54 to .88 (Beck & Steer, 1991; Pinniti et al., 2002), and total item-total correlations were significant beyond the .001 level (Pinniti et al., 2002).

In recent evaluations, in a sample of U.S. male psychiatric inpatients, con- vergent validities with the Reasons for Attempting Suicide Questionnaire (RASQ) internal subscale and Adult Suicide Ideation Questionnaire (ASIQ; p< .01; Horon, McManus, Schmollinger, Barr, & Jimenez, 2013) were estab- lished. Further, convergent validities were established with the Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) in primarily female Asian American young adult vol- unteers (p< .01; Miranda, Gallagher, Bauchner, Vaysman, & Marroquin, 2012) and incarcerated U.S. psychiatric inpatients (p< .01; Horon et al., 2013). Finally, a Chinese version of the BSSI demonstrated convergent validity with the total Three-Dimensional Psychological Pain Scale, Psychache Scale, and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), in majority female Chinese outpatients with mood or depressive disorders (p< .01; Li et al., 2014).

Internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alpha) in U.S. samples ranged from .85 to .98, in studies that included incarcerated U.S. males (.85, Horon et al., 2013; .94, Smith, Wolford, Mandracchia, & Jahn, 2013), African American mothers with a history of suicide attempt (.91; Woods, Zimmerman, Carlin, Hill, & Kaslow, 2013), primarily Asian American women undergraduates (.96, Miranda, Valderrama, Tsypes, Gadol, & Gallagher, 2013; .98, Polanco-Roman & Miranda, 2013), and primarily female Asian American young adult volunteers (.95; Miranda et al., 2012). In two of these samples, which contained majority Asian American young women, follow-up internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alpha) ranged from .97 (Miranda et al., 2012) to .98 (Miranda et al., 2013).

40 OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying 77(1)

In majority female Chinese samples, the internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the Chinese version of current ideation was .90 (Li et al., 2014) and .91 (Xie et al., 2014). In these Chinese samples, worst ideation internal consis- tencies (Cronbach’s alpha) were .94 (Xie et al., 2014) and .95 (Li et al., 2014). Further, Cronbach’s alpha of the Chinese version, in a sample of primarily female Taiwanese adults with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), was .85 (Tzu-Chi et al., 2010).

Additionally, in a study including a majority of Pakistani women hospitalized after a suicide attempt, internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the Urdu translated version was .89 (Husain et al., 2014). Finally, the Korean version of the instrument, in a sample of majority South Korean women at high-risk for suicide, produced a Cronbach’s alpha of .92 (Kim, Ha, Yu, Park, & Ryu, 2014), and in a majority male Korean epileptic sample, Cronbach’s alpha was .82 (Lim et al., 2010).

2. The Suicidal Behaviors Questionnaire—Revised (SBQ-R; Osman et al., 2001) is a 4-item self-report measure of four suicidal constructs, each measuring a dimension of suicidal ideation. Item 1 evaluates lifetime ideation and attempt, Item 2 assesses frequency of ideation in the past 12 months, Item 3 explores suicide threats, and Item 4 evaluates the likelihood of future suicidal behavior.

In a study comparing psychiatric inpatients and nonclinical undergraduate students, during original scale development, the SBQ-R differentiated between suicidal and nonsuicidal groups (p< .001). A cutoff score of 2 in both clinical and nonclinical samples was most useful in identifying individuals with estab- lished suicide status, correctly identifying individuals as positive for suicide idea- tion or attempts (sensitivity: .80–1.0), and individuals identified as nonsuicidal were correctly identified as nonsuicide ideators or nonattempters (specificity: .96–1.0; Osman et al., 2001).

Recent sample internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alpha) in U.S. adults ranged from .79 to .90 in studies that included majority male deployed military personnel (.79; Bryan, Hernandez, Sybil, & Clemans, 2013) and university stu- dents and adults (.90; O’Riley & Fiske, 2012). In a sample of primarily female United Kingdom individuals with a history of traumatic event exposure, Cronbach’s alpha of the English version was .87 (Panagioti, Gooding, & Nicholas, 2012). The instrument was also translated to German in another study, which included primarily female German adults, resulting in a Cronbach’s alpha of .76 (Wagner, Klinitzke, Brahler, & Kersting, 2013).

3. The Interpersonal Needs Questionnaire (INQ; Van Orden, Witte, Gordon, Bender, & Joiner, 2008) is a 10-, 12-, 15-, 18-, or 25-item self-report measure, with subscales measuring the constructs of both thwarted belongingness and

Kreuze and Lamis 41

perceived burdensomeness. Using a 7-point Likert scale, individuals consider recent events and indicate the degree to which each item is true for them. The scores are coded, and some items are reversed scored, with higher numbers reflecting greater levels of thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensome- ness. During scale development, in a sample containing a majority of under- graduate students, INQ-12 internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) belongingness subscale scores were .85 and burdensomeness subscale scores were .89 (Van Orden et al., 2008).

With regard to factor structure, in a study examining clinical and nonclinical young adults, the INQ-10, �12, and �15 demonstrated better fit than the INQ- 18 and �25 during confirmatory factor analysis (p< .001; Hill et al., 2014). Additionally, factor analysis confirmed that the INQ consists of two distinct latent factors associated with burdensomeness and belongingness, in deployed U.S. military personnel samples (p< .001; Bryan, 2011), U.S. undergraduate students (p< .001; Freedenthal, Lamis, Osman, Kahlo, & Gutierrez, 2011), and in U.S. samples of younger and older adults (p< .001; Van Orden, Cukrowicz, Witte, & Joiner, 2012). Results indicated 10 (p< .001; Bryan, 2011), 12 (p< .001; Freedenthal et al., 2011), and 15 (p< .001; Van Orden et al., 2012) items provided reliable and acceptable fit.

In an American undergraduate sample, INQ-12 perceived burdensomeness subscale scores were positively correlated with the BDI-II (p< . 01), BHS (p< .01), Modified Scale for Suicide Ideation (p< .01), Life Attitudes Schedule-Short Form (p< .01), and the Acquired Capability for Suicide Scale (ACSS; p< .05), and negatively correlated with the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (p< .01), and Reasons for Living Inventory for Young Adults (RFL-YA; p< .01; Freedenthal et al., 2011). Similarly, in this sample, INQ-12 thwarted belongingness subscale scores were positively correlated with the BDI-II, BHS, Modified Scale for Suicide Ideation, Life Attitudes Schedule- Short Form, and negatively correlated with Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support and RFL-YA (p< .01; Freedenthal et al., 2011).

Higher sample BSSI scores, in a U.S. multisample study including under- graduates, young adults, and older adults, were also associated with greater thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness subscale scores (p< .01; Van Orden et al., 2012). In this sample, the INQ also demonstrated predictive validity, as higher summed thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness subscale scores were both associated with higher BSSI scores 1 month later (Belongingness, p< .05; Burdensomeness, p< .01; Van Orden et al., 2012).

In majority male deployed U.S. military samples, INQ-10 internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of belongingness was .86 and burdensomeness was .81 (Bryan, 2011; Bryan et al., 2013). In a primarily female U.S. undergraduate

42 OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying 77(1)

sample, INQ-12 Cronbach’s alpha of belongingness was .92 and burdensome- ness was .93 (Freedenthal et al., 2011). In a sample containing American Indian or Alaska Natives, INQ-18 Cronbach’s alpha of belongingness was .90 and burdensomeness was .90 (O’Keefe & Wingate, 2013). Finally, in a sample includ- ing U.S. undergraduates, young adult outpatients, and older adults, INQ-25 Cronbach’s alpha of belongingness was .85 and burdensomeness was .89 (Van Orden et al., 2012).

4. The ASIQ (Reynolds, 1991) is a 25-item self-report measure rated on 7-point item response scale. The instrument assesses frequency of suicidal thoughts, desire to die, suicidal plans, and suicidal behaviors occurring in the previous month. The potential range of total scores is 0 to 150. Higher scores indicate numerous suicidal cognitions occurring with regularity. During original scale development, in a study examining undergraduate students, the ASIQ had high reported reliability (coefficient alpha: .97), test–retest reliability (.86), contrasted groups validity (p< .001), and significant correlations (all p’s< .001) between the ASIQ and depression, hopelessness, anxiety, self- esteem, and history of prior suicide attempts (Reynolds, 1991).

In a recent sample including U.S. male incarcerated psychiatric patients, con- vergent validities with the BHS, BSSI, and RASQ Internal subscale were demon- strated (p< .01; Horon et al., 2013). In this study, which included many men from the lowest socioeconomic statuses, sample internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alpha) ranged from .85 (i.e., cutoff score of 31) to .95 (i.e., no cutoff score; Horon et al., 2013).

5. The Suicidal Ideation Scale (SIS; Rudd, 1989) is a 10-item self-report measure, with each item rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. The instrument measures a continuum of suicidal thoughts, from ideation to attempts. The SIS has the ability to discriminate between those who have and have not attempted suicide. During scale development, in a study includ- ing undergraduate students, internal consistency (coefficient alpha) was .86 and interrater reliability was .95 (Rudd, 1989).

Recent sample convergent validity between the SIS and the Cultural Assessment of Risk for Suicide total and subscale scores was established (p< .001; Chu et al., 2013) in a study including majority U.S. women, with inclusion of homosexual, bisexual, and transgender, populations. Further, in a majority male U.S. clinical military sample, construct validity was established with the Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale-24 (p< .001; Luxton, Rudd, Reger, & Gahm, 2011). In these studies, internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was .91 (Luxton et al., 2011) and .94 (Chu et al., 2013).

Kreuze and Lamis 43

6. The Scale for Suicide Ideation (SSI-C; Beck, Kovacs, & Weissman, 1979) is a clinician-administered, 21-item scale with each item consisting of three alternate statements based on intensity from 0 to 2. The first 19 items are scored, resulting in a total score that ranges from 0 to 38. The instrument quantifies the intensity of current conscious suicidal ideation by scaling various dimensions of self-destructive thoughts or wishes. Items assess the extent of suicidal thoughts, the extent of the wish to die, the desire to make an actual suicide attempt, details of plans (if any), internal deterrents, and subjective feelings of control regarding proposed attempt. During scale development, in a study including inpatient psychiatric populations, internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was .89, interrater reliability was .83, 16 of the 19 coefficients were significant (p< .01), and concurrent validity was high with clinical evaluations as well as with the BDI (p< .001; Beck et al., 1979).

An expansion of the SSI, which includes the SSI-W (worst ideation), uses the same format and scoring as the SSI-C, but focuses specifically on suicidal idea- tion at the worst point in one’s life (Beck, Brown, & Steer, 1997). During SSI-W scale development, in a study of psychiatric outpatients, internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was .89 and the scale was associated with a history of suicide attempt (p< .001; Beck et al., 1997).

In recent studies, English version interrater reliability was .89, in samples including majority male Italian adults with panic disorder (De Baradis et al., 2013) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (De Baradis et al., 2014). Further, in a sample including Finnish adults with major depressive disorder (MDD), the English version produced cutoff score dependent sensitivities ranging from .76 to .81 and cutoff score dependent specificities ranging from .68 to .92 (Vuorilehto et al., 2014). Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the Korean version, in a sample of South Korean psychiatric in-patients, was .95 (Jon, Lee, & Park, 2013).

7. The Suicide Probability Score (SPS; Cull & Gill, 1982) is a 36-item self-report measure, with each item being rated on a 4-point Likert scale. Individuals report frequencies of subjective experiences and past behaviors (none or little to most or all of the time), which aids in the assessment of suicide risk. The items are then weighed from 0 to 5 and totaled to determine a total weighted score, normalized t-score, suicide probability scores, and four subscale scores (i.e., 12 hopelessness items, 9 negative self-evaluation items, 8 suicide ideation items, and 7 hostility items). In an original standardization study comparing nonclinical adolescents, nonclinical adults, psychiatric inpatients, and indi- viduals with a history of suicide attempt, internal consistency (coefficient alpha) for the total scale was .93 and subscale scores ranged from .62 to .89 (.62 for negative self-evaluation, .78 for hostility, .80 for hopelessness,

44 OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying 77(1)

and .89 for suicide ideation; Cull & Gill, 1982). During scale development, split-half reliability for the total scale was .93 (Cull & Gill, 1982).

Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the English version, in a sample study examining a majority of hospitalized Scottish females after a recent suicide attempt, was .86 (O’Connor, Smyth, Ferguson, Ryan, & Williams, 2013). Another study used the English version for 15% of participants, and the French version for the remaining 85%, in a sample containing an all-male Canadian incarcerated population (Naud & Daigle, 2010). In this male-incar- cerated sample, a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed the area under the curve for detecting hopelessness was .63, suicidal ideation was .66, negative self-evaluation was .64, and hostility was .64 (p< .001; Naud & Daigle, 2010). The sensitivity of the SPS in this incarcerated Canadian sample was .36 and the specificity was .85 (Naud & Daigle, 2010).

8. The ACSS (Van Orden et al., 2008) is a 20-item self-report instrument, with scores rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 to 4. Total scores can range from 0 to 80. The instrument assesses respondents’ fearlessness about death and acquired capability for suicide. Higher scores indicate less fear of death, greater pain tolerance, and exposure to painful and provocative events (creating acquired capability).

Factor analysis, in a study of U.S. undergraduate students, demonstrated that the strongest factor loading was associated with item 19 (i.e., I am not at all afraid to die, p¼ .03), but all items were reasonable indicators of each factor (Ribeiro et al., 2014). In studies examining undergraduates and individuals with a history of suicide attempt, there was a strong correlation between total scores and perceived courage to make a suicide attempt (p< .001; Ribeiro et al., 2014), positive associations with exposure to painful and provocative events (p< .001; Bender, Gordon, Bresin, & Joiner, 2011; Van Orden et al., 2008), and a strong negative correlation with fear of suicide (p< .001; Ribeiro et al., 2014).

Additional factor analysis, in a U.S. incarcerated male population, indicated that a four-factor model provided the best statistical and conceptual fit; three of the four factors were interpretable (i.e., general fearlessness and perceived pain tolerance, fearlessness of death, and spectator enjoyment of violence; p< .001; Smith et al., 2013). Sample internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alpha) ranged from .69 to .84 in studies including majority male U.S. deployed military per- sonnel (.69; Bryan et al., 2013), primarily female American Indian or Alaska natives (.84; O’Keefe & Wingate, 2013), and German men exposed to violent video gaming (.84; Teismann, Fortsch, Baumgart, Het, & Michalak, 2014).

9. The Hopelessness Depression Symptom Questionnaire—Suicidality Subscale (HDSQ-SS; Joiner, Pfaff, & Acres, 2002) is a 4-item self-report measure

Kreuze and Lamis 45

(subscale of the HDSQ; Metalsky & Joiner, 1997). Items are rated on 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 to 3, based on the severity and frequency of suicidal ideation in the past 2 weeks. Total scores range from 0 to 12. The instrument also assesses the number of past suicide attempts. During original scale development, in a study examining nonclinical adolescents and young adults, internal consistency (coefficient alpha) was .90, correlations between suicidal ideation and depression were high (p< .001), and interitem correl- ations were high with all items loading strongly (p< .001; Joiner et al., 2002).

In a more recent study consisting of majority female American Indian or Alaska natives from 27 different tribes, the sample internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was .88 (O’Keefe & Wingate, 2013).

10. The BDI-II (Beck, Steer, Ball, & Ranieri, 1996) is a 21-item self-report inven- tory, with symptoms rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 to 3. Item 9 assesses suicidal ideation. Total scores range from 0 to 63. The instrument measures the severity of depression within the past 2 weeks. Four new symp- toms (agitation, concentration difficulty, worthlessness, and loss of energy) were added to the BDI-II, and four symptoms (weight loss, body image change, work difficulty, and somatic preoccupation symptoms) were removed from the original BDI (Beck & Steer, 1984).

During scale development, the BDI-II had high internal consistency (coeffi- cient alpha .91) and moderate to strong convergent validities with other self- report and clinical rating scales of depression in studies including psychiatric, nonclinical young adult, and undergraduate populations (p< .001; Ball & Steer, 2003; Beck et al., 1996). While validating the scale in a sample of clinically depressed outpatients, two factors representing Somatic-Affective and Cognitive dimensions were found (p< .05), and confirmatory factor analysis supported a model in which the BDI-II reflected one underlying second-order dimension composed for two first-order factors representing cognitive and non- cognitive symptoms (p< .001; Steer, Ball, Ranieri, & Beck, 1999).

In a sample ROC analysis, including U.S. post-Myocardial Infarction patients, the area under the curve for diagnosing MDD was .962 (i.e., good discrimination between those with and without depression; p< .001; Huffman et al., 2010). Further, sample convergent validity with the BHS was established in a sample including primarily female U.S. young adult volunteers (p< .01; Miranda et al., 2012). Also, convergent validity with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 was demonstrated in U.S. heart failure patients (p< .01; Hammash et al., 2012) and depressed Australian adults (p< .001; Titov et al., 2011). In a sample of primarily female Norwegian adults, using a cutoff score of 12, sensitivity was .85 and specificity was .88. (Kjaergarrd,

46 OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying 77(1)

Elisabeth, Wang, Waterloo, & Jorde, 2014). With a cutoff score of 14, however, in a sample of primarily male U.S. adults, sensitivity was .88 and specificity was .84 (Huffman et al., 2010. In this U.S. male sample, using a cutoff score of 16, sensitivity was .88 and specificity was .92 (Huffman et al., 2010).

In a sample study examining majority Norwegian women who experienced first stroke, person-separation reliability (i.e., ability of the scale to distinguish at least three distinct groups of depression) was 1.99 (Lerdal, Kottorp, Gay, Grov, & Lee, 2014). Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) ranged from .89 to 90 in studies examining U.S. heart failure patients (.89; Hammash et al., 2012), U.S. young adult volunteers (.90; Miranda et al., 2012), primarily female Norwegian adults (.89; Kjaergarrd et al., 2014), Norwegian adults with a history of stroke (.90; Lerdal et al., 2014), and depressed Australian adults (.90; Titov et al., 2011).

The Arabic version of the instrument, in a sample including primarily female college students from Kuwait, demonstrated convergent validity with the Hopkins Symptoms Checklist-25 (p< .001; Al-Turkait & Ohaeri, 2010). The Arabic version, in this college sample from Kuwait, produced an internal con- sistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of .83 (Al-Turkait & Ohaeri, 2010). Finally, the Chinese version of the instrument, in a sample of Taiwanese outpatients with OCD, had a Cronbach’s alpha of .93 (Tzu-Chi et al., 2010).

11. The BDI—Fast Screen (BDI-FS; Scheinthal, Steer, Giffin, & Beck, 2001) contains seven items that assess the psychological symptoms of depression, all of which were drawn from the 21-item BDI-II. It is a self-report inventory and each item contains a 4-point rating scale ranging from 0 to 3; thus, total scores can range from 0 to 21. During scale development, internal consist- ency (Cronbach’s alpha) was .88 for medical adult outpatients being treated in family practice (Beck, Steer, Ball, Ciervo, & Kabat, 1997) and was .86 for medical adult outpatients being treated in internal medicine (Steer, Cavalieri, Leonard, & Beck, 1999).

The German version of the instrument, in a study examining majority women medical patients from the German general population, sample internal consist- ency (Cronbach’s alpha) was .84 (Kliem, Moble, Zenger, & Brahler, 2014). Further, in this study, the BDI-FS was positively correlated with the PHQ-9 (p< .001; Kliem et al., 2014).

12. The PHQ-9 (Kroenke, Spitzer, & Williams, 2001) is a 9-item self-report measure with each question rated on a scale from 0 to 3. Total scores can range from 0 to 27, with Item 9 inquiring about thoughts of self-harm. A major depression diagnosis is present if five of the nine depressive symptom

Kreuze and Lamis 47

criteria (depressed mood or anhedonia) have been present more than half the days in the past 2 weeks.

During original scale development in primary care and obstetrics-gynecology studies, there was a strong association between increasing PHQ-9 scores and worsening functional status, disability days, and symptom-related difficulty (p< .05; Kroenke et al., 2001). The PHQ-9 was also positively correlated with the Mental Health Inventory (p< .05; Kroenke et al., 2001). Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was .89 and .86 in primary care and obstetrics-gynecology studies, respectively, and 48-hour test–retest reliability was .84 (Kroenke et al., 2001).

In recent studies, PHQ-9 scores were strongly correlated with BDI-II scores, in samples including U.S. older adult heart failure patients (p< .01; Hammash et al., 2012) and depressed Australian adults (p< .001; Titov et al., 2011). There was also convergent validity with the BSSI in a sample of primarily female U.S. college students (p< .01; Polanco-Roman & Miranda, 2013).

Sensitivity for different cutoff scores ranged from .54 to .92, in studies includ- ing U.S. cardiac and stroke patients (.54; Razykov, Zieglestein, Whooley, & Thombs, 2012), depressed U.S. adults (.69; Uebelacker, German, Baudiano, & Miller, 2011), U.S. heart failure patients (.70; Hammash et al., 2012), U.S. older adults (.88; Phelan et al., 2010), and U.S. epilepsy patients (.92, Rathore et al., 2014). In these sample studies, specificity for varying cutoff scores ranged from .74 to .92 (.74, Rathore et al., 2014; .80, Phelan et al., 2010; .84, Uebelacker et al., 2011; .90 Razykov et al., 2012; .92, Hammash et al., 2012). Finally, in a sample including depressed U.S. adults, the sensitivity of suicide Item 9 was .69 and the specificity of Item 9 was .84 (Uebelacker et al., 2011).

Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) ranged from .74 to .85 in samples including depressed Australian adults (.74; Titov et al., 2011), U.S. college stu- dents (.82, Polanco-Roman & Miranda, 2013; .83, Miranda et al., 2013), Hispanic American women (.84; Merz, Malcarne, Roesch, Riley, & Sadler, 2011), and U.S. heart failure patients (.85; Hammash et al., 2012). Follow-up internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was .79 (Miranda et al., 2013) and .83 (Polanco-Roman & Miranda, 2013) in U.S. college student samples, and was .81 in a sample of depressed Australian adults (Titov et al., 2011). Interrater reli- ability was .81 in an international sample including advanced cancer patients (Lie et al., 2015).

While evaluating the Iranian and Dutch versions of the instrument, in a ROC analysis, the area under the curve for diagnosing MDD was .83 in the Iranian version (p< .001; Khamseh et al., 2011) and was .87 in the Dutch version (p< .001; Zuithoff et al., 2010). The Dutch version produced a sensitivity and specificity of .82 (Zuithoff et al., 2010). In contrast, the Iranian version produced a sensitivity of .73 and specificity of .76 (Khamseh et al., 2011). Internal consistency

48 OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying 77(1)

(Cronbach’s alpha) of the Dutch version was .88 (Zuithoff et al., 2010). Cronbach’s alpha of the Iranian version was .87 (Khamseh et al., 2011).

The Spanish version of the instrument, in a sample of Peruvian women, had an internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of .81 (Zhong et al., 2014). Further, the Spanish version, in a sample of Spanish speaking U.S. women who emi- grated from Mexico, had a Cronbach’s alpha of .85 (Merz et al., 2011).

Finally, the sensitivity and specificity of suicide Item 9 in the Japanese version of the instrument was .70 and .97, respectively (Inagaki et al., 2013). The sen- sitivity and specificity of detecting MDD in the Japanese version with cutoff points of 4/5 were .86 and .85, respectively (Inagaki et al., 2013).

13. The Telephone-Linked Communication Patient Health Questionnaire – 9 (TLC-PHQ-9; Farzanfar et al., 2014; Friedman, Stollerman, Mahoney, & Roznblyum, 1997) is an automated telephone-based system that speaks to the patient using digitized human speech and administers the 9-item instru- ment. Each question is rated on a scale from 0 to 3, with total scores ranging from 0 to 27. Item 9 inquires about thoughts of self-harm. If thoughts of self- harm are endorsed, a special alert immediately notifies the clinician. In con- trast, if self-harm is not endorsed, patient responses are stored in a database and clinicians review reports at periodic intervals.

Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was .92 in a sample consisting of majority U.S. women with varying degrees of depression (Farzanfar et al., 2014) and was .84 in a study including majority male U.S. National Guard soldiers (Fine et al., 2013). Test–retest reliability (weighted Kappa) in the depressed U.S. sample was .76 (Farzanfar et al., 2014). Further, in the depressed U.S. sample, sensitivity was .82 and specificity was .90 (Farzanfar et al., 2014). In the U.S. National Guard sample, a cutoff score of 10 produced the optimal balance of sensitivity (.56) and specificity (.86; Fine et al., 2013).

14. The Sheehan Suicidality Tracking Scale (S-STS; Coric, Stock, Pultz, Marcus, & Sheehan, 2009), adapted from the Suicidality Module of the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview Structured Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV (Sheehan et al., 1998), is an 8-item self-report or clinician administered rating scale. Each item in the scale is scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 to 4. The instrument tracks spontaneous and treatment-emergent suicidal ideation and behaviors (self-injury, self-harm, ideation, and attempt). Data from the S-STS can be analyzed as individual item scores, suicidal ideation subscale score, suicidal behavior subscale score, and total score.

Kreuze and Lamis 49

During scale development, in a randomized trial including female outpatients with generalized anxiety disorder, the sensitivity of the S-STS in prospectively identifying subjects with suicidal thoughts or behaviors was 100%, as compared with the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression suicide Item 3, which had a sensitivity of 63% (Coric et al., 2009).

Criterion validity was reinforced in a more recent sample including majority Italian female undergraduate students, as individuals endorsing suicide ideation had higher S-STS global, suicide ideation subscale, and suicidal behavior sub- scale scores (p< .001; Preti et al., 2013). Further, in this sample, convergent validity with the General Health Questionnaire, and discriminative validity with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and Modified Social Support Survey was established (p< .001; Preti et al., 2013). Finally, in this sample, internal consistencies (Guttman’s lambda 2 for global scores, suicide ideation scores, and suicide behavior scores) ranged from .83 to .88 and test–retest consistency scores ranged from .46 to .88 (Preti et al., 2013).

15. The Self-Injury Implicit Association Test (SI-IAT; Nock & Banaji, 2007a; Nock & Banaji, 2007b) is an approximately 5-minute computer-based task that examines implicit thoughts without having to rely on self-report. It is a performance-based measure that assesses strengths of automatic associations (persons categorize stimuli into one of two groups). Participants independ- ently classify self-injury related stimuli (e.g., pictures of skin that has been cut) or neutral stimuli (e.g., pictures of noninjured skin) as quickly as pos- sible. Faster sorting during the test indicates stronger implicit links in those constructs for the subject. Suicide, death, and self-injury implicit associations can predict future self-harm events.

During original instrument development, in studies including adolescents (nonsuicidal controls, individuals with suicidal ideation, and individuals with a recent suicide attempt) and psychiatrically distressed individuals, there were large differences on the SI-IAT between nonsuicidal persons and suicide ideators (p< .001; Nock & Banaji, 2007b), and suicide attempters (p< .001; Nock & Banaji, 2007b; Nock et al., 2010), as well as between suicide ideators and suicide attempters (p¼ .009; Nock & Banaji, 2007b). Further, during instrument valid- ation testing, nonsuicidal adolescents had a negative association between self- injury and oneself, suicide ideators showed a small positive association between self-injury and oneself, and suicide attempters had a large positive association between self-injury and oneself (p< .05; Nock & Banaji, 2007b). In studies also including adult U.S. psychiatric inpatient individuals, prediction of suicide idea- tion and suicide attempt was accurate despite age, mood and substance dis- orders, hopelessness, and total number of psychiatric disorders (p< .001, Ellis,

50 OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying 77(1)

Rufino, & Green, 2016; p< .001, Nock & Banaji, 2007b; p< .05, Nock et al., 2010).

Additionally, in this study of U.S. psychiatric inpatients, IAT scores were positively correlated with BSSI, BHS, and PHQ-9 scores (p< .01; Ellis et al., 2016). Moreover, in a sample including Canadian adults with suicidal ideation or recent self-harm, the Death or Life IAT significantly predicted self-harm (p¼ .02; Randall, Rowe, Dong, Nock, & Colman, 2013). In this Canadian sample, with a high cutoff, the Death or Life IAT sensitivity was 96.6% and specificity was 53.9%; with a low cutoff, the Death or Life IAT sensitivity was 58.6% and specificity was 96.2% (Randall et al., 2013).

16. The Reasons for Living Inventory (RFL; Linehan, Goodstein, Nielsen, & Chiles, 1983) is a 48-item self-report measure. Respondents indicate, on a 6-point Likert-type scale, the importance of each reason for not attempting suicide. Higher scores indicate stronger reasons for living. The instrument assesses a range of beliefs thought to be important in differentiating suicidal from nonsuicidal individuals.

The original instrument had 72-items; however, in a validation study including both clinical and nonclinical undergraduates and adults, principal-component factor analysis was applied and total items were reduced to 48 (Linehan et al., 1983). Subsequent factor analyses in nonclinical and psychiatric inpatient partici- pants indicated that there were six primary reasons for living, encompassing the six RFL subscales (i.e., Survival and Coping Beliefs, Responsibility to Family, Child-Related Concerns, Fear of Suicide, Fear of Social Disapproval, and Moral Objections; Linehan et al., 1983). In this validation study, the RFL differentiated suicidal from nonsuicidal individuals (p< .001); specifically, in nonclinical indi- viduals, the Fear of Suicide further differentiated between previous ideators and previous suicide attempters (p< .001; Linehan et al., 1983). Alternatively, in clin- ical individuals, Child-Related Concerns differentiated between current suicide ideators and current suicide attempters (p< .001; Linehan et al., 1983). However, in both clinical and nonclinical populations, Survival and Coping, Responsibility to Family, and Child-Related Concerns subscales were most useful in differentiat- ing suicidal and nonsuicidal groups (Linehan et al., 1983).

In recent studies, internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was .94 in a sample including majority female U.S. older adults (Segal, Marty, Meyer, & Coolidge, 2012) and was .96 in a sample containing African American mothers with a history of suicide attempt (Woods et al., 2013). In the study including U.S. older adults, Cronbach’s alpha for survival and coping beliefs was .94, responsibility to family was .86, child-related concerns was .78, fear of suicide was .78, fear of social dis- approval was .81, and moral objections was .82 (Segal et al., 2012).

Kreuze and Lamis 51

The English version was also translated to Malay in one study, and factor analysis confirmed six primary reasons for living (p< .001; Aishvarya et al., 2014). The Malaysian version was positively correlated with the Positive And Negative Suicide Ideation Inventory (PANSI-Positive), Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE), Adult Trait Hope Scale (ATH), Provision of Social Relations (PSR), and Satisfaction with Life (SWL) (p< .001; Aishvarya et al., 2014). Further, in this study, the Malaysian version was negatively correlated with the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS), BHS, and PANSI-Negative (p< .001; Aishvarya et al., 2014). Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was .94 (Aishvarya et al., 2014).

Discussion

Approximately 90% of unplanned suicide attempts and 60% of planned first attempts occur within 1 year of the onset of suicidal ideation (American Psychiatric Association[APA], 2010). Thus, identifying psychometrically tested suicide risk assessment instruments with the strongest psychometric properties are paramount in recognizing individuals at high risk of suicide. There is not a universal set of strategies for suicidal ideation detection; however, the WHO (2014) recommends assessment of emotional distress, early identification of mental disorders and alcohol misuse, and reduction in access to the most prevalent means. In contrast, U.S. National Guideline Clearinghouse recom- mendations (NGC, 2014) state that suicide risk assessment involves a clinical interview with subsequent administration of Beck’s Hopelessness, Suicidal Ideation and Suicide Intent scales, BDI, and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.

U.S. suicide risk assessment recommendations are based on the following levels of evidence: C (i.e., studies rated as 2+ , case control or cohort studies), D (i.e., evidence level 3 or 4), Q (i.e., qualitative studies with appropriate quality), and Good Clinical Practice (i.e., based on clinical experience; NGC, 2014). Sample articles support a portion of these national guidelines, as the SIS, SSI, and BDI-II had the first, second, and fourth highest internal consistencies, respectively, and administration of these instruments is equally feasible. Moreover, guideline levels of evidence and sample levels are similar, as 7.8% and 92.2% of included studies represent levels of Evidences 2 and 3, respectively.

Although there are conflicting theories regarding suicide, and several models were identified in this review, analysis of the sample population partially sup- ports the IPTS. In studies that contained a majority of male participants (n¼11), over 36% of men were in the military and more than 27% were incarcerated, and it is likely these groups of men in particular had experienced or perpetrated traumatic events. Repeated provocative exposures, such as traumatic events, may create less fear of pain, injury, and death.

52 OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying 77(1)

Additionally, provocative exposures may potentiate feelings of low belongingness, particularly if the individual is removed from a familiar environment and placed in a combat or prison environment with others experiencing simultaneous stress.

Moreover, several sample participants indicated family members had attempted suicide or died by suicide. These psychologically painful experiences may also accelerate feelings of social isolation and decrease fear of death. Finally, over 30% of all participants sampled had made a previous suicide attempt, which is likely a conservative estimate because not all studies inquired about previous suicide attempts. Repeated self-injury supports gradual habitu- ation toward increasingly lethal self-harm. This group of individuals, if express- ing the desire to die by suicide, as endorsed by positive suicidal ideation on screening instruments, may increasingly develop the ability to die by suicide.

Although several countries have established suicide risk assessment screening instrument recommendations, current suicide risk assessment tools do not con- tain guidelines for mental health clinicians on how to tailor risk assessment for diverse patient populations, including sexual orientation, race or ethnicity, and religious diversity, which is problematic because willingness to report suicidal behavior varies by age, sex, race or ethnicity, and religion (American Psychological Association, 2012; WHO, 2014). The IPTS suggests that individ- uals gradually become more vulnerable, and insensitive screening practices may precipitate feelings of isolation and being misunderstood by others.

In the current sample, African American, Asian American, American Indian, Hispanic American, Latino(a) American, Pacific Islanders, Mestizos, Peruvian, Malay, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Taiwanese, Pakistani, Australian, German, United Kingdom, Canadian, Norwegian, Dutch, Italian, Austrian, Finnish, Scottish, Arab, Iranian, and Indian populations were represented. Additionally, in one sample, transgender, homosexual, and bisexual populations were represented. Inclusion of diverse populations permitted preliminary evalu- ations of psychometric properties in these important populations.

However, although there was inclusion of diverse populations and non- English language versions (i.e., Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Urdu, Arabic, Iranian, Malay, Spanish, French, Dutch, and German), these diverse popula- tions and language versions remain underrepresented. Further, some studies utilized validated non-English versions, whereas other studies used a translator to administer a translated version, and additional evaluations will more firmly establish psychometrics in these non-English versions.

The majority (68.6%) of studies used the English language version (n¼35). Of the 35 studies using the English version, 65.7% included U.S. populations (n¼23). This results in questionable usefulness and generalizability in clinical practice because many of the instruments are tested on nonrepresentative sam- ples and have not been adequately tested in important subpopulations (APA, 2010). Generalizablity may further be limited if the English version of an

Kreuze and Lamis 53

instrument is applied in a country where several languages are spoken, and where cultural and religious perspectives are diverse. Thus, it is important to additionally test non-English versions of the instrument in studies that include more diverse populations, to validate psychometrics, and improve generalizability.

Comprehensive search strategies were employed in this review; however, the included suicide risk assessment instruments do not represent an exhaustive list. Although this work adds to the psychometric properties outlined in Brown’s (2001) review, includes additional screening instruments (i.e., INQ, ACSS, HDSQ-SS, BDI-FS, PHQ-9, TLC-PHQ-9, S-STS and Implicit Association Test), includes international populations, and integrates studies with varying methodologies, Brown provides a comprehensive summary of additional instru- ments. Particularly, one of the U.S. national guideline recommended instru- ments, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, did not appear as a psychometrically tested suicide risk instrument during the search, but it is described in Brown’s (2001) review.

In addition, another potential limitation involves the low levels of evidence that support previously discussed results. Another obstacle involves relying so profoundly on the individual’s self-report in determining the effectiveness of a suicide risk assessment instrument. Only one sample instrument, the Implicit Association Test, did not involve participants relaying thoughts of self-harm and instead utilized computer-based assessments. Perhaps there is consistent underreporting of suicidal ideation in those who have acquired the ability and strongly desire to die by suicide. The resulting effects are practices and recom- mendations that are largely based on observational studies, validated primarily by participant self-report.

Conclusion

To confirm suicide risk assessment instruments’ psychometric properties and improve generalizability, more diverse population representation and additional representation of non-English versions in studies is required. Including under- represented groups and non-English instruments will promote enhanced cultur- ally and linguistically sensitive suicidal ideation and suicidal behavior instruments that may better predict risk. Additional research of underrepre- sented groups may also reduce the feelings of isolation and burdensomeness experienced by those with suicide ideation, if these groups are equally repre- sented and included. Addressing existing research gaps may reduce morbidity (i.e., perceived burdensomeness and thwarted belongingness) and mortality (i.e., the acquired ability for lethal self-harm). Finally, addressing these research gaps will be important in understanding the social, cultural, economic, and political context of suicide.

54 OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying 77(1)

1 .

B e c k

S c a le

fo r

S u

ic id

e Id

e a ti

o n

(B S

S I)

A u th

o r

a n d

y e a r;

in st

ru m

e n t

v e rs

io n

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l

M o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o m

e tr

p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e ve

l o f

e v id

e n c e

M ir

a n d a

e t

a l. ,

2 0 1 3 .

*E n g li sh

V e rs

io n .

n ¼

5 6

U .S

. u n iv

e rs

it y

st u d e n ts

, a g e s

1 8 – 2 2

(m e a n

1 8 .4

). n ¼

4 5

fe m

a le

, n ¼

1 1

m a le

3 6 %

A si

a n , 2 3 %

W h it e ,

2 0 %

H is

p a n ic

, 9 %

B la

c k ,

1 3 %

O th

e r.

S tu

d e n ts

e n d o rs

e d

a h is

to ry

o f

su ic

id a l id

e a ti o n . A

ls o ,

n ¼

2 5

re p o rt

e d

m a k in

g a

p re

v io

u s

su ic

id e

a tt

e m

p t.

D ia

th e si

s- st

re ss

h o p e le

ss n e ss

m o d e l o f

su ic

id a li ty

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

w a s

.9 6

a t

b a se

li n e

a n d

.9 8

a t

6 -m

o n th

fo ll o w

-u p .

H o ro

n e t

a l. , 2 0 1 3 .

*E n g li sh

V e rs

io n .

n ¼

3 4 2

U .S

. m

a le

s, a g e s

1 9 – 7 5

(m e a n

3 7 ),

a d m

it te

d fo

r in

p a ti e n t

h o sp

it a li za

ti o n

a t

th e

d e p a rt

m e n t

o f

c o rr

e c -

ti o n s

m e n ta

l h e a lt h

p sy

c h ia

tr ic

p ro

g ra

m .

n ¼

1 2 3

W h it e , n ¼

1 2 2

B la

c k ,

n ¼

6 5

L a ti n o , n ¼

3 2

o th

e r.

7 9 %

in ju

re d

a n o th

e r

a n d

2 4 %

to o k

th e

li fe

o f

a n o th

e r.

4 6 %

re p o rt

e d

lo w

e st

so c io

e c o n o m

st a tu

F lu

id v u ln

e ra

b il it y

th e o ry

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

w a s

.8 5 . C

o n v e rg

e n t

v a li d it y

w it h

R A

S Q

In te

rn a l,

A S IQ

, a n d

B H

S .

M ir

a n d a

e t

a l. ,

2 0 1 2 .

*E n g li sh

V e rs

io n .

n ¼

4 5

y o u n g

a d u lt

U .S

v o lu

n te

e rs

, a g e s

1 8 – 2 2 ,

se le

c te

d fr

o m

la rg

e r

sa m

p le

. M

e a n

a g e

1 8 .3

y e a rs

. n ¼

3 5

fe m

a le

n ¼

1 0

m a le

n ¼

1 3

re p o rt

e d

p re

v io

u s

su ic

id e

a tt

e m

p t.

n ¼

1 0

su ic

id a l id

e a ti o n

a t

b a se

li n e .

4 0 %

A si

a n , 2 4 %

W h it e , 2 2 %

H is

p a n ic

, 7 %

B la

c k , 7 %

O th

e r.

D ia

th e si

s- st

re ss

m o d e l o f

su ic

id a l

b e h av

io r.

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

w a s

.9 5

a t

b a se

li n e

a n d

.9 7

a t

6 -m

o n th

fo ll o w

-u p .

C o n v e rg

e n t

v a li d it y

w it h

B H

S a n d

su i-

c id

e a tt

e m

p t.

3 (c o n ti n u e d )

A p

p e n

d ix

A :

L it

e r a tu

r e

T a b

C o n ti n u e d

A u th

o r

a n d

ye a r ;

in st

ru m

e n t

ve rs

io n

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l

M o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o m

e tr

p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e v e l o f

e v id

e n c e

P o la

n c o -R

o m

a n

M ir

a n d a , 2 0 1 3 .

*E n g li sh

V e rs

io n .

n ¼

1 4 3

U .S

. a d u lt s,

a g e s

1 8 – 2 5

ye a rs

(m e a n

1 8 .6

), fr

o m

a ra

c ia

ll y

a n d

e th

n ic

a ll y

d iv

e rs

c o ll e g e . 8 0 %

fe m

a le

2 0 %

m a le

3 4 %

A si

a n

(5 1 %

n o n -U

.S .

b o rn

), 2 9 %

W h it e

(3 8 %

n o n -U

.S . b o rn

), 1 7 %

L a ti n o

(3 8 %

n o n -U

.S . b o rn

), 1 1 %

B la

c k

(4 4 %

n o n -U

.S . b o rn

8 %

o th

e r.

In te

rp e rs

o n a l

p sy

c h o lo

g ic

a l

th e o ry

o f

su ic

id a l b e h av

io r.

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

w a s

.9 8 . C

o n ve

rg e n t

v a li d it y

w it h

P H

Q -9

S m

it h

e t

a l. , 2 0 1 3 .

*E n g li sh

V e rs

io n .

n ¼

3 9 9

U .S

. in

m a te

s fr

o m

st a te

a n d

re g io

n a l

p ri

so n s,

a g e s

1 9 – 6 9

(m e a n

3 5 .2

2 ).

1 0 0 %

m a le

sa m

p le

5 5 .1

% A

fr ic

a n

A m

e ri

c a n ,

3 6 .1

% W

h it e , 1 .3

A m

e ri

c a n

In d ia

n , 1 %

H is

p a n ic

o r

L a ti n o , 2 .5

o th

e r,

a n d

4 %

d id

n o t

a n sw

e r.

In te

rp e rs

o n a l

p sy

c h o lo

g ic

a l

th e o ry

o f

su ic

id e .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

w a s

.9 4 .

X ie

e t

a l. , 2 0 1 4 .

*C h in

e se

V e rs

io n

(1 )

n ¼

2 0

C h in

e se

h e a lt h y

c o n tr

o ls

(m e a n

a g e

3 0 ).

(2 )

n ¼

4 0

C h in

e se

o u tp

a ti e n ts

w it h

M D

(m e a n

a g e

3 3 .8

3 ).

(1 )

C o n tr

o l:

6 0 %

fe m

a le

; a g e s

2 0 – 5 5

ye a rs

. (2

)

E x p e ri

m e n ta

l: 7 0 %

fe m

a le

;

a g e s

1 8 – 5 7

y e a rs

; n ¼

1 6

re p o rt

e d

h is

to ry

o f

su ic

id a l a c ts

P sy

c h a c h e

th e o ry

. C

ro n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

fo r

B S S I-

C w

a s

.9 1

a n d

th e

B S S I-

W w

a s

.9 4 .

H u sa

in e t

a l. , 2 0 1 4 .

*U rd

u T ra

n sl

a ti o n

(P a k is

ta n )

P a k is

ta n i a d u lt s

h o sp

it a -

li ze

d a ft

e r

se lf -h

a rm

ra n d o m

iz e d

to (1

) T A

C o n tr

o l (n ¼

1 1 3 ),

o r

(2 )

E x p e ri

m e n ta

l C

M A

P G

ro u p

(n ¼

1 0 8 ).

O f

th e

2 2 1

su b je

c ts

, 6 9 %

fe m

a le

; m

e a n

a g e

2 3 .1

2 4 %

m a rr

ie d , 2 %

d iv

o rc

e d ;

4 0 %

n u c le

a r

fa m

il y,

6 0 %

jo in

t fa

m il y.

7 4 %

u n e m

p lo

y e d .

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

w a s

.8 9 .

2 (c o n ti n u e d )

C o n ti n u e d

A u th

o r

a n d

y e a r;

in st

ru m

e n t

v e rs

io n

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l

M o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o m

e tr

p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e ve

l o f

e v id

e n c e

W o o d s

e t

a l. , 2 0 1 3 .

*E n g li sh

V e rs

io n

n ¼

1 4 6

A fr

ic a n

A m

e ri

c a n

U .S

. w

o m

e n , a g e s

1 8 – 6 4

(m e a n

3 5 .6

). A

p a rt

ic ip

a n ts

w it h

su i-

c id

e a tt

e m

p t

in th

p re

v io

u s

1 2

m o n th

N o n -m

o th

e rs

n ¼

3 0 ;

m o th

e rs

n ¼

1 1 6 . 8 6 %

u n e m

p lo

ye d . 5 1 .3

h o m

e le

ss . M

in o ri

ty , in

n e r

c it y,

a t-

ri sk

p o p u la

ti o n .

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

w a s

.9 1 .

K im

e t

a l. , 2 0 1 4 .

*K o re

a n

v e rs

io n .

n ¼

6 8 4

S o u th

K o re

a n

a d u lt s

a g e

6 5

ye a rs

a n d

o ld

e r

(m e a n

7 8 .2

) a t

h ig

h ri

sk o f

su ic

id e .

n ¼

5 3 7

fe m

a le

, n ¼

1 4 7

m a le

n ¼

5 2

re p o rt

e d

p re

v io

u s

su ic

id e

a tt

e m

p t.

4 3 %

h a d

d e p re

ss iv

e sy

m p to

m s.

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

w a s

.9 2 . C

o n v e rg

e n t

v a li d it y

w it h

G D

S .

D is

c ri

m in

a te

v a li d it y

w it h

P W

S .

L im

e t

a l. , 2 0 1 0 .

*K o re

a n

v e rs

io n .

n ¼

2 5 7

e p il e p ti c

K o re

a n

a d u lt s.

M e a n

a g e

3 5 .1

y e a rs

. 6 0 %

m a le

, 4 0 %

fe m

a le

1 5 %

h is

to ry

o f

p sy

c h ia

tr ic

d is

e a se

s. 1 5 %

c o n c o m

it a n t

m e d ic

a l d is

e a se

. 7 0 %

p a r-

ti a l se

iz u re

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

w a s

.8 2 .

3 (c o n ti n u e d )

C o n ti n u e d

A u th

o r

a n d

y e a r;

in st

ru m

e n t

v e rs

io n

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l

M o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o m

e tr

p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e ve

l o f

e v id

e n c e

L i e t

a l. , 2 0 1 4 .

*C h in

e se

v e rs

io n .

n ¼

1 1 1

C h in

e se

o u tp

a ti -

e n ts

w it h

M D

D a n d

m o o d

d is

o rd

e rs

. M

e a n

a g e

3 1 .5

y e a rs

. n ¼

7 0

fe m

a le

, n ¼

4 1

m a le

2 5 .2

% (n ¼

2 8 )

h a d

a p re

v io

u s

su ic

id e

a tt

e m

p t.

A m

o n g

th e

2 8

w it h

a p re

v io

u s

a tt

e m

p t,

n ¼

2 0

w e re

w o m

e n

a n d

n ¼

8 w

e re

m e n .

E sc

a p e

fr o m

S e lf ;

H o p e le

ss n e ss

;

S tr

e ss

D ia

th e si

m o d e l;

P sy

c h o lo

g ic

a l

P a in

T h e o ry

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a ,

B S S I-

C w

a s

.9 0

a n d

th e

B S S I-

W w

a s

.9 5 .

C o n v e rg

e n t

v a li d it y

w it h

to ta

l T

D P P S

sc o re

, P A

S , B

D I-

I-

C V , a n d

c li n ic

a l

in te

rv ie

w .

T zu

-C h i e t

a l. ,

2 0 1 0 .

*C h in

e se

V e rs

io n .

n ¼

1 2 8

T a iw

a n e se

o u tp

a -

ti e n ts

w it h

O C

D , a g e s

1 5 – 5 5

(m e a n

3 3 .5

6 4 %

m a le

, 3 6 %

fe m

a le

6 8 .7

% si

n g le

, 3 1 .3

% m

a rr

ie d .

6 3 .3

% u n e m

p lo

y e d , 3 6 .7

e m

p lo

y e d . 8 5 .9

% li v in

w it h

fa m

il y.

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

w a s

.8 5 .

R A

S Q ¼

R e a so

n s

fo r

A tt

e m

p ti n g

S u ic

id e

Q u e st

io n n ai

re ;

A S IQ ¼

A d u lt

S u ic

id a l

Id e a ti o n

Q u e st

io n n a ir

e ;

T D

P P S ¼

T h re

e -D

im e n si

o n a l

P sy

c h o lo

g ic

al P a in

S c a le

;

P A

S ¼

P sy

c h ac

h e

S c a le

; O

C D ¼

o b se

ss iv

e -c

o m

p u ls

iv e

d is

o rd

e r ; B

H S ¼

B e c k

H o p e le

ss n e ss

S c a le

; P H

Q ¼

P a ti e n t

H e a lt h

Q u e st

io n n a ir

e ; M

D D ¼

m a jo

r d e p re

ss iv

d is

o rd

e r ; G

D C ¼

G e ri

a tr

ic D

e p re

ss io

n S c a le

; P W

S ¼

P sy

c h o lo

g ic

a l W

e ll b e in

g S c a le

2 .

S u

ic id

a l

B e h

a v io

r s

Q u

e s ti

o n

n a ir

e -R

e v is

e d

(S B

Q -R

A u th

o r

a n d

y e a r;

in st

ru m

e n t

v e rs

io n

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l m

o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o -

m e tr

ic p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e ve

l o f

e v id

e n c e

B ry

a n

e t

a l. , 2 0 1 3 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n .

D e p lo

ye d

U .S

. m

il it a ry

p e rs

o n n e l:

(1 )

N o n c li n ic

a l g ro

u p

n ¼

3 4 8

(3 1 2

m a le

, 3 6

fe m

a le

). (2

) C

li n ic

a l

g ro

u p : n ¼

2 1 9

fr o m

o u tp

a ti e n t

m e n ta

h e a lt h

c li n ic

(2 0 1

m a le

1 8

fe m

a le

F u ll

S a m

p le

: 6 7 .8

% W

h it e ,

1 4 .3

% B

la c k , 1 0 .3

H is

p a n ic

o r

L a ti n o , 3 %

A si

a n

o r

P a c if ic

Is la

n d e r,

2 .8

% O

th e r,

1 .8

% U

n k n o w

n . M

e a n

a g e

2 6 .1

9 y e a rs

In te

rp e rs

o n a l

p sy

c h o lo

g ic

a l

th e o ry

o f

su ic

id e .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a :

N o n c li n ic

a l

sa m

p le

.7 8 ; c li n i-

c a l sa

m p le

.7 9 .

O ’R

il e y

& F is

k e ,

2 0 1 2 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n .

S a m

p le

1 : n ¼

6 3 6

U .S

u n iv

e rs

it y

st u d e n ts

a g e s

1 8 – 2 4 ; 7 0 .9

% fe

m a le

S a m

p le

2 : n ¼

8 8

U .S

a d u lt s

a g e

6 5

o r

o ld

e r ;

5 2 .9

% m

a le

3 %

se ri

o u sl

y c o n te

m -

p la

te d

su ic

id e ; 4 %

fr e q u e n t

p a st

ye a r

id e a ti o n ; 4 %

h a d

su ic

id e

p la

n . A

u th

o r’ s

re p o rt

9 3 .8

% o f

p a rt

ic ip

a n ts

E u ro

p e a n

A m

e ri

c a n .

A u to

n o m

y th

e o ry

. C

ro n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

w a s

.9 0 .

3 (c o n ti n u e d )

C o n ti n u e d

A u th

o r

a n d

y e a r;

in st

ru m

e n t

v e rs

io n

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l m

o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o -

m e tr

ic p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e ve

l o f

e v id

e n c e

P a n a g io

ti , e t

a l. ,

2 0 1 2 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n .

n ¼

9 1

U .K

. p a rt

ic ip

a n ts

a g e s

1 8 – 6 5

y e a rs

(m e a n

2 9 .0

2 ),

w h o

e x p e ri

e n c e d

a tr

a u m

a ti c

e ve

n t

o r

h a d

P T

S D

n ¼

6 9

fe m

a le

, n ¼

2 2

m a le

7 6 .9

% W

h it e . 6 4 %

u n m

a rr

ie d . 5 2 .7

re p o rt

e d

li fe

ti m

e su

ic i-

d a l b e h av

io rs

. 3 4 .1

re p o rt

e d

p a st

y e a r

su ic

id a l id

e a ti o n .

C ry

o f

P a in

m o d e l

o f

su ic

id e ;

S c h e m

a ti c

A p p ra

is a l M

o d e l

o f

S u ic

id e .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

w a s

.8 7 .

W a g n e r

e t

a l. ,

2 0 1 3 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n

tr a n sl

a te

d a n d

b a c k -t

ra n sl

a te

to G

e rm

a n .

n ¼

2 ,4

3 6

G e rm

a n s;

n ¼

1 ,2

7 8

fe m

a le

(m e a n

a g e

5 0 .7

) a n d

n ¼

1 ,1

5 8

m a le

(m e a n

a g e

5 0 .4

T o ta

l sa

m p le

: 2 3 .9

% si

n g le

5 1 .7

% m

a rr

ie d

o r

p a rt

n e r,

1 2 .3

% d iv

o rc

e d ,

1 2 .1

% w

id o w

e d . 7 .3

u n e m

p lo

y e d .

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

w a s

.7 6 .

3 .

In te

r p

e r s o

n a l

N e e d

s Q

u e s ti

o n

n a ir

e (I

N Q

A u th

o r

a n d

y e a r;

in st

ru m

e n t

v e rs

io n

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l m

o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o m

e tr

p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e ve

l o f

e v id

e n c e

B ry

a n , C

.J .,

2 0 1 1 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n .

n ¼

2 1 9

d e p lo

ye d

U .S

m il it a ry

p e rs

o n n e l,

fr o m

a b e h av

io ra

h e a lt h

c li n ic

. M

e a n

a g e

2 7 .8

ye a rs

. 9 1 .8

% m

a le

8 .2

% fe

m a le

6 1 .6

% A

rm y.

7 2 .1

% W

h it e ,

1 4 .2

% B

la c k , 8 .2

H is

p a n ic

, 2 .7

% A

si a n

o r

P a c if ic

Is la

n d e r,

.5 %

o th

e r.

In te

rp e rs

o n a l

p sy

c h o lo

g ic

a l

th e o ry

o f

su ic

id e .

IN Q

-1 0

fa c to

r a n a ly

si s

c o n fi rm

e d

tw o

d is

ti n c t

fa c to

rs , c o n si

st e n t

w it h

P B

/T B

c o n st

ru c ts

C ro

n b ac

h ’s

a lp

h a : P B

.8 1 ; T

B .8

6 .

B ry

a n

e t

a l. , 2 0 1 3 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n .

D e p lo

ye d

U .S

. m

il it a ry

p e rs

o n n e l:

(1 )

N o n c li n ic

a l g ro

u p

n ¼

3 4 8

(3 1 2

m a le

, 3 6

fe m

a le

). (2

) C

li n ic

a l

g ro

u p : n ¼

2 1 9

fr o m

a n

o u tp

a ti e n t

m e n ta

h e a lt h

c li n ic

(2 0 1

m a le

1 8

fe m

a le

F u ll

sa m

p le

: 6 7 .8

% W

h it e ,

1 4 .3

% B

la c k , 1 0 .3

H is

p a n ic

o r

L a ti n o , 3 %

A si

a n

o r

P a c if ic

Is la

n d e r,

2 .8

% o th

e r,

1 .8

% u n k n o w

n .

M e a n

a g e

2 6 .1

9 y e a rs

In te

rp e rs

o n a l

p sy

c h o lo

g ic

a l

th e o ry

o f

su ic

id e .

N o n c li n ic

a l sa

m p le

IN Q

1 0

c ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a : P B

.7 1 ; T

B .8

3 . C

li n ic

a l

S a m

p le

IN Q

-1 0

C ro

n b ac

h ’s

a lp

h a : P B

.8 1 ; T

B .8

6 .

O ’K

e e fe

W in

g a te

, 2 0 1 3 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n .

n ¼

1 6 8

A m

e ri

c a n

In d ia

n /

A la

sk a

N a ti v e s,

a g e s

1 8 – 6 2

(m e a n

2 3 .0

7 )

fr o m

th re

e U

.S . u n iv

e r-

si ti e s.

7 7 .4

% fe

m a le

2 2 .6

% m

a le

7 7 .4

% si

n g le

, 1 6 .1

m a rr

ie d , 3 %

c o h a b it a ti n g ,

3 %

d iv

o rc

e d , .6

se p a ra

te d . 2 7

d if fe

re n t

tr ib

e s

w e re

re p re

se n te

d .

In te

rp e rs

o n a l

p sy

c h o lo

g ic

a l

th e o ry

o f

su ic

id e .

IN Q

-1 8

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a :

T B

.9 0 ; P B

.9 0 .

3 (c o n ti n u e d )

C o n ti n u e d

A u th

o r

a n d

y e a r;

in st

ru m

e n t

v e rs

io n

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l m

o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o m

e tr

p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e ve

l o f

e v id

e n c e

F re

e d e n th

a l e t

a l. ,

2 0 1 1 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n .

n ¼

7 8 5

U .S

. u n d e rg

ra d u -

a te

c o ll e g e

st u d e n ts

a g e s

1 8 – 2 5

y e a rs

(m e a n

1 9 .3

). 5 8 .6

% fe

m a le

4 1 .4

% m

a le

7 7 .2

% W

h it e , 1 3 %

A fr

ic a n

A m

e ri

c a n , 4 .3

% A

si a n

A m

e ri

c a n , 1 .2

% H

is p a n ic

A m

e ri

c a n , .4

% A

m e ri

c a n

In d ia

n .

In te

rp e rs

o n a l

p sy

c h o lo

g ic

a l

th e o ry

o f

su ic

id e .

IN Q

-1 2

P B

su b sc

a le

sc o re

s p o si

ti v e ly

c o rr

e la

te d

w it h

B D

I- II ,

B H

S , M

S S I,

L A

S -S

F, a n d

A C

S S ; n e g a ti v e ly

c o rr

e la

te d

w it h

M S P S S ,

R F L -Y

A . T

B su

b sc

a le

sc o re

s p o si

ti v e ly

c o rr

e la

te d

w it h

B D

I- II ,

B H

S , M

S S I,

L A

S -S

F ;

n e g a ti v e ly

c o rr

e la

te d

w it h

M S P S S , R

F L -Y

A .

C ro

n b ac

h ’s

a lp

h a : P B

.9 3 ; T

B .9

2 .

3 (c o n ti n u e d )

C o n ti n u e d

A u th

o r

a n d

y e a r;

in st

ru m

e n t

v e rs

io n

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l m

o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o m

e tr

p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e ve

l o f

e v id

e n c e

V a n

O rd

e n

e t

a l. ,

2 0 1 2 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n .

S a m

p le

1 : n ¼

3 1 2 ; m

e a n

a g e

1 9 ; 7 4 %

fe m

a le

;

6 4 %

W h it e .

S a m

p le

2 : n ¼

4 5 6 ;

m e a n

a g e

1 8 ; 6 4 %

fe m

a le

; 8 0 %

W h it e .

S a m

p le

3 : n ¼

4 5 6 ;

m e a n

a g e

1 8 ; 6 7 %

fe m

a le

; 8 3 %

W h it e .

S a m

p le

4 : n ¼

3 9 7 ;

m e a n

a g e

2 6 ; 5 7 %

fe m

a le

; 7 6 %

W h it e .

S a m

p le

5 : n ¼

2 6 5 ;

m e a n

a g e

7 2 ; 6 0 %

fe m

a le

; 8 8 %

W h it e .

S a m

p le

s 1 , 2

(E F A

), a n d

(C FA

): U

.S . c o ll e g e

st u -

d e n ts

. S a m

p le

4 (C

F A

Y o u n g

a d u lt s

fr o m

a U

.S .

o u tp

a ti e n t

m e n ta

l h e a lt h

c e n te

r. S a m

p le

5 (C

F A

H e a lt h y

U .S

. o ld

e r

a d u lt s

fr o m

p ri

m a ry

c a re

a n d

c o m

m u n it y

se tt

in g s.

In te

rp e rs

o n a l p sy

c h o -

lo g ic

a l th

e o ry

o f

su ic

id e .

E F A

re li a b le

fi t;

C FA

tw o

fa c to

r la

te n t

st ru

c tu

w it h

1 5

it e m

s. H

ig h e r

B S S I

sc o re

s a ss

o c ia

te d

w it h

g re

a te

r T

B /P

su b sc

a le

sc o re

s. H

ig h e r

T B

/P B

su m

m e d

sc o re

a ss

o c ia

te d

w it h

h ig

h e r

B S S I

sc o re

s 1 -m

o n th

la te

r. C

ro n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

2 5 -i te

m s:

T B

.8 5 ; P B

.8 9 .

M S S I¼

M o d if ie

d S c a le

fo r

S u ic

id e

Id e a ti o n ;

L A

S -S

F ¼

L if e

A tt

it u d e s

S c h e d u le

-S h o rt

F o rm

; A

C S S ¼

A c q u ir

e d

C a p a b il it y

fo r

S u ic

id e

S c a le

;

M S P S S ¼

M u lt id

im e n si

o n a l

S c a le

o f

P e rc

e iv

e d

S o c ia

l S u p p o rt

; R

F L -Y

A ¼

R e as

o n s

fo r

L iv

in g

In v e n to

ry fo

r Y o u n g

A d u lt s;

B H

S ¼

B e c k

H o p e le

ss n e ss

S c a le

;

B D

I¼ B

e c k

D e p re

ss io

n In

v e n to

ry ;

B S S I¼

B e c k

S c a le

fo r

S u ic

id e

Id e a ti o n ;

E FA ¼

E x p lo

ra to

ry F a c to

r A

n a ly

si s;

C FA ¼

C o n fi rm

a to

ry F a c to

r A

n a ly

si s;

P B

T B ¼

P e rc

e iv

e d

B u rd

e n so

m e n e ss

/T h w

a rt

e d

B e lo

n g in

g n e ss

4 .

A d

u lt

S u

ic id

a l

Id e a ti

o n

Q u

e s ti

o n

n a ir

e (A

S IQ

A u th

o r

a n d

ye a r ;

in st

ru m

e n t

v e rs

io n

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l m

o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o m

e tr

p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e ve

l o f

e v id

e n c e

H o ro

n e t

a l. , 2 0 1 3 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n .

n ¼

3 4 2

U .S

. m

a le

s, a g e s

1 9 – 7 5

(m e a n

3 7 ),

a d m

it te

d fo

r in

p a ti e n t

h o sp

it a li za

ti o n

a t

th e

d e p a rt

m e n t

o f

c o rr

e c -

ti o n s

m e n ta

l h e a lt h

p sy

c h ia

tr ic

p ro

g ra

m .

n ¼

1 2 3

W h it e , n ¼

1 2 2

B la

c k , n ¼

6 5

L a ti n o ,

n ¼

3 2

o th

e r.

7 9 %

in ju

re d

a n o th

e r

a n d

2 4 %

to o k

th e

li fe

o f

a n o th

e r.

4 6 %

re p o rt

e d

lo w

e st

so c io

e c o n o m

st a tu

F lu

id V u ln

e ra

b il it y

T h e o ry

W it h

a c u to

ff sc

o re

o f

3 1

d is

ti n g u is

h in

g 6

c ri

ti c a l

it e m

s (0

– 6 ),

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

.8 5 . W

it h o u t

c u to

ff sc

o re

(0 – 1 4 2 ),

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

.9 5 .

C o n ve

rg e n t

v a li d it y

w it h

B H

S , B

S S I,

a n d

R A

S Q

In te

rn a l.

R A

S Q ¼

R e a so

n s

fo r

A tt

e m

p ti n g

S u ic

id e

Q u e st

io n n ai

re ; B H

S ¼

B e c k

H o p e le

ss n e ss

S c a le

; B

S S I¼

B e c k

S c a le

fo r

S u ic

id e

Id e a ti o n .

5 .

S u

ic id

a l

Id e a ti

o n

S c a le

(S IS

A u th

o r

a n d

ye a r ;

in st

ru m

e n t

v e rs

io n

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l m

o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o m

e tr

p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e ve

l o f

e v id

e n c e

C h u

e t

a l. , 2 0 1 3 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n .

n ¼

9 5 0

U .S

. a d u lt s,

1 8

y e a rs

a n d

o ld

e r

(m e a n

2 5 .2

6 ).

6 3 .8

% fe

m a le

3 1 .1

% m

a le

, 1 .3

tr a n sg

e n d e r,

3 .8

u n sp

e c if ie

d . 1 6 .4

% p re

v io

u s

su ic

id e

a tt

e m

p t.

1 0 .5

% h o m

o se

x u a l,

8 .2

b is

e x u a l,

3 .5

% q u e s-

ti o n in

g , 1 %

u n la

b e le

d .

3 4 .1

% A

si a n

A m

e ri

c a n ,

1 9 .1

% L a ti n o (a

)

A m

e ri

c a n , 5 .8

% A

fr ic

a n

A m

e ri

c a n .

C u lt u ra

l th

e o ry

a n d

m o d e l o f

su ic

id e .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

w a s

.9 4 . C

o n v e rg

e n t

v a li d it y

w it h

C A

R S

to ta

l a n d

su b sc

a le

sc o re

L u x to

n e t

a l. , 2 0 1 1 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n .

n ¼

3 ,0

7 2

U .S

. m

il it a ry

p e rs

o n n e l a g e s

1 8 – 5 8

(m e a n

2 8 .3

O u tp

a ti e n t

c li n ic

a l

sa m

p le

. 8 0 .6

% m

a le

1 9 .4

% fe

m a le

6 5 .9

% W

h it e , 1 3 .2

% B

la c k ,

3 .8

% A

si a n

o r

P a c if ic

Is la

n d e r,

8 .8

% L a ti n o ,

a n d

8 .3

% O

th e r.

8 6 .7

a c ti v e

d u ty

; 9 9 .2

A rm

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

w a s

.9 1 . E FA

tw o -f

a c to

so lu

ti o n

d e m

o n -

st ra

te d

g o d

fi t

C FA

d a ta

C o n st

ru c t

v a li d it y

w it h

th e

B A

S IS

-2 4 .

C A

R S ¼

C u lt u ra

l A

ss e ss

m e n t

o f

R is

k fo

r S u ic

id e ; B

A S IS ¼

B e h av

io r

a n d

S y m

p to

m Id

e n ti fi c a ti o n

S c a le

6 .

S c a le

o f

S u

ic id

e Id

e a ti

o n

(S S

I) .

A u th

o r

a n d

ye a r ;

in st

ru m

e n t

v e rs

io n

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l m

o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o m

e tr

p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e ve

l o f

e v id

e n c e

D e

B e ra

d is

e t

a l. ,

2 0 1 3 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n ;

It a li a n

sa m

p le

n ¼

7 2

It a li a n

p a rt

ic ip

a n ts

a g e s

1 8 – 3 0

(m e a n

2 5 .3

n ¼

3 7

m a le

, n ¼

3 5

fe m

a le

O u tp

a ti e n ts

w it h

p a n ic

d is

o rd

e r

a n d

n e ve

m e d ic

a te

d .

N o

p a ti e n ts

w it h

p re

v io

u s

su ic

id e

a tt

e m

p t.

n ¼

(4 .2

% )

o f

p a rt

ic ip

a n ts

re p o rt

e d

a fa

m il y

h is

to ry

o f

su ic

id e .

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

In te

rr a te

r re

li a b il it y

w a s

.8 9 .

D e

B a ra

d is

e t

a l. ,

2 0 1 4 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n ;

It a li a n

sa m

p le

n ¼

7 9

It a li a n

p a rt

ic ip

a n ts

a g e s

1 8 – 4 4

(m e a n

2 8 .7

n ¼

4 6

m a le

, n ¼

3 6

fe m

a le

O u tp

a ti e n ts

w it h

O C

a n d

n e ve

r m

e d ic

a te

d .

n ¼

5 (6

.3 %

) p re

v io

u sl

a tt

e m

p te

d su

ic id

e .

n ¼

7 (8

.9 %

) re

p o rt

e d

fa m

il y

h is

to ry

o f

su ic

id e .

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

In te

rr a te

r re

li a b il it y

w a s

.8 9 .

V u o ri

le h to

e t

a l. ,

2 0 1 4 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n ;

F in

n is

h sa

m p le

C o h o rt

O n e : V a n ta

a P ri

m a ry

C a re

D e p re

ss io

n S tu

d y

(p ri

m a ry

c a re

p a ti e n ts

)

n ¼

9 1 . C

o h o rt

T w

o :

V a n ta

a D

e p re

ss io

n S tu

d y

(p sy

c h ia

tr ic

p a ti e n ts

)

n ¼

1 9 4 .

A ll

F in

n is

h p a rt

ic ip

an ts

h a d

c u rr

e n t

M D

D .

T o ta

l sa

m p le

a g e s

2 0 – 6 9

(m e a n

4 1 .9

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

S e n si

ti v it y

w a s

.8 1 , .8

1 ,

a n d

.7 6 , sp

e c if ic

it y

w a s

.6 8 , .7

3 , a n d

.9 2 ,

fo r

c u to

ff sc

o re

g re

a te

r th

a n

e q u a l

to 6 , 8 , a n d

1 2 ,

re sp

e c ti ve

ly .

Jo n

e t

a l. , 2 0 1 3 .

*K o re

a n

v e rs

io n .

n ¼

4 5

S o u th

K o re

a n

p a ti e n ts

w it h

m e n ta

l il ln

e ss

C o n tr

o l (n ¼

2 3 )

M ay

a n d

Ju n e

h o sp

it a li za

ti o n s.

E x p e ri

m e n ta

l (n ¼

2 2 )

A u g

a n d

S e p t

h o sp

it a li za

ti o n s.

T o ta

l sa

m p le

: m

e a n

a g e

4 4 .9

y e a rs

. n ¼

2 3

m a le

;

n ¼

2 2

fe m

a le

. n ¼

2 5

p re

v io

u s

su ic

id e

a tt

e m

p t.

n ¼

2 1

p re

v io

u s

h o sp

it a li za

ti o n .

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

w a s

.9 5 .

O C

D ¼

o b se

ss iv

e -c

o m

p u ls

iv e

d is

o rd

e r ; M

D D ¼

m a jo

r d e p re

ss iv

e d is

o rd

e r

7 .

S u

ic id

e P

r o

b a b

il it

y S

c o

r e

(S P

S ).

A u th

o r

a n d

ye a r ;

in st

ru m

e n t

v e rs

io n

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l m

o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o m

e tr

p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e ve

l o f

e v id

e n c e

N a u d

& D

a ig

le ,

2 0 1 0 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n

1 5 %

o f

sa m

p le

*F re

n c h

v e rs

io n

8 5 %

o f

sa m

p le

n ¼

5 1 8

C a n a d ia

n in

m a te

a g e s

1 8

ye a rs

a n d

o ld

e r

(m e a n

a g e

3 3 ).

1 0 0 %

m a le

sa m

p le

M e a n

d u ra

ti o n

o f

p ri

so n

se n te

n c e

w a s

4 6

m o n th

s. 5 8 %

p e rp

e -

tr a te

d a

v io

le n t

o ff e n c e .

A u to

-a g g re

ss iv

e n e ss

th e o ry

R O

C A

U C

fo r

h o p e -

le ss

n e ss

.6 3 , su

ic id

a l

id e a ti o n

.6 6 , n e g a -

ti v e

se lf -e

v a lu

a ti o n

.6 4 , a n d

h o st

il it y

.6 4 .

S e n si

ti v it y

w a s

.3 6

a n d

sp e c if ic

it y

w a s

.8 5 .

O ’C

o n n o r

e t

a l. ,

2 0 1 3 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n ;

S c o tt

is h

sa m

p le

n ¼

7 0

S c o tt

is h

a d u lt s

h o sp

it a li ze

d a ft

e r

su i-

c id

e a tt

e m

p t.

n ¼

4 1

fe m

a le

, n ¼

2 9

m a le

A g e s

1 6 – 6 9

(m e a n

a g e

3 5 .6

9 3 %

o v e rd

o se

. O

th e rs

se lf -c

u tt

in g

(n ¼

3 )

a n d

se lf -c

u tt

in g

w it h

o ve

d o se

(n ¼

4 ).

A u th

o rs

re p o rt

e d , ‘‘ . . .t

h e

o v e r-

w h e lm

in g

m a jo

ri ty

o f

p a rt

ic ip

a n ts

w e re

w h it e .’’

T h re

e -p

h a se

p sy

c h o lo

g ic

a l

m o d e l:

In te

g ra

te d

M o ti v a ti o n a l-

V o li ti o n a l M

o d e l.

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

w a s

.8 6 .

R O

C ¼

re c e iv

e r

o p e ra

ti n g

c h a ra

c te

ri st

ic ; A

U C ¼

A re

a U

n d e r

th e

C u rv

e .

8 .

A c q

u ir

e d

C a p

a b

il it

y fo

r S

u ic

id e

S c a le

(A C

S S

A u th

o r

a n d

ye a r ;

in st

ru m

e n t

v e rs

io n

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l m

o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o m

e tr

p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e ve

l o f

e v id

e n c e

B ry

a n

e t

a l. , 2 0 1 3 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n .

D e p lo

y e d

U .S

. m

il it a ry

p e rs

o n n e l 1 .)

N o n c li n ic

a l g ro

u p

n ¼

3 4 8

(3 1 2

m a le

, 3 6

fe m

a le

). 2 .)

C li n ic

a l

g ro

u p : n ¼

2 1 9

fr o m

o u tp

a ti e n t

m e n ta

h e a lt h

c li n ic

(2 0 1

m a le

1 8

fe m

a le

F u ll

M il it a ry

S a m

p le

: 6 7 .8

W h it e , 1 4 .3

% B

la c k ,

1 0 .3

% H

is p a n ic

o r

L a ti n o , 3 %

A si

a n

o r

P a c if ic

Is la

n d e r,

2 .8

O th

e r,

1 .8

% U

n k n o w

n .

M e a n

a g e

2 6 .1

9 y e a rs

In te

rp e rs

o n a l-

p sy

c h o lo

g ic

a l

th e o ry

o f

su ic

id e .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a :

N o n c li n ic

a l sa

m p le

.6 6 ; c li n ic

a l sa

m p le

.6 9 .

S m

it h

e t

a l. , 2 0 1 3 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n .

n ¼

3 9 9

U .S

. in

m a te

s fr

o m

st a te

a n d

re g io

n a l p ri

o n s,

a g e s

1 9 – 6 9

(m e a n

3 5 .2

2 ).

1 0 0 %

m a le

sa m

p le

5 5 .1

% A

fr ic

a n

A m

e ri

c a n ,

3 6 .1

% W

h it e ,

1 .3

A m

e ri

c a n

In d ia

n , 1 %

H is

p a n ic

/L a ti n o , 2 .5

O th

e r,

4 %

d id

n o t

a n sw

e r.

In te

rp e rs

o n a l-

p sy

c h o lo

g ic

a l

th e o ry

o f

su ic

id e .

F a c to

r a n a ly

si s:

F o u r-

fa c to

r m

o d e l

p ro

v id

e d

th e

b e st

st a ti st

ic a l o r

c o n -

c e p tu

a l fi t;

3 o f th

e 4

fa c to

rs w

e re

in te

p re

ta b le

. P a in

fu l li fe

e ve

n ts

p re

d ic

te d

a ll

th re

e A

C S S

fa c to

rs .

3 (c o n ti n u e d )

C o n ti n u e d

A u th

o r

a n d

ye a r ;

in st

ru m

e n t

v e rs

io n

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l m

o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o m

e tr

p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e ve

l o f

e v id

e n c e

T e is

m a n n

e t

a l. ,

2 0 1 4 .

*E n g li sh

V e rs

io n ;

G e rm

a n

S a m

p le

n ¼

8 1

G e rm

a n

m e n , a g e s

1 8 – 3 9

y e a rs

(m e a n

2 6 .2

). A

ll p a rt

ic ip

a n ts

w e re

w h it e . 5 8 %

si n g le

3 0 %

st a b le

re la

ti o n sh

ip ,

1 2 %

m a rr

ie d .

N o

p a rt

ic ip

a n ts

re p o rt

e d

h av

in g

e v e r

a tt

e m

p te

su ic

id e . 3 8 %

re p o rt

e d

p la

y in

g a n

a c ti o n -

sh o o te

r v id

e o

g a m

a t

le a st

o n c e

a w

e e k .

In te

rp e rs

o n a l-

p sy

c h o lo

g ic

a l

th e o ry

o f

su ic

id e .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

w a s

.8 4 .

O ’K

e e fe

W in

g a te

, 2 0 1 3 .

*E n g li sh

V e rs

io n .

n ¼

1 6 8

A m

e ri

c a n

In d ia

o r

A la

sk a

N a ti v e s,

a g e s

1 8 – 6 2

(m e a n

2 3 .0

7 )

fr o m

th re

e U

.S . u n iv

e r-

si ti e s.

7 7 .4

% fe

m a le

2 2 .6

% m

a le

7 7 .4

% si

n g le

, 1 6 .1

% m

a r-

ri e d , 3 %

c o h a b it a ti n g ,

3 %

d iv

o rc

e d , .6

% se

p a -

ra te

d . 2 7

d if fe

re n t

tr ib

e s

w e re

re p re

se n te

d .

In te

rp e rs

o n a l-

p sy

c h o lo

g ic

a l

th e o ry

o f

su ic

id e .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

w a s

.8 4 .

A C

S S ¼

A c q u ir

e d

C a p a b il it y

fo r

S u ic

id e

S c a le

9 .

H o

p e le

s s n

e s s

D e p

r e s s io

n S

y m

p to

m Q

u e s ti

o n

n a ir

e -S

u ic

id a li ty

S u

b s c a le

(H D

S Q

-S S

A u th

o r

a n d

ye a r ;

in st

ru m

e n t

v e rs

io n

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l m

o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o m

e tr

p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e ve

l o f

e v id

e n c e

O ’K

e e fe

W in

g a te

, 2 0 1 3 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n .

n ¼

1 6 8

A m

e ri

c a n

In d ia

o r

A la

sk a

N a ti v e s,

a g e s

1 8 – 6 2

(m e a n

2 3 .0

7 )

fr o m

th re

e U

.S . u n iv

e r-

si ti e s.

7 7 .4

% fe

m a le

2 2 .6

% m

a le

7 7 .4

% si

n g le

, 1 6 .1

% m

a r-

ri e d , 3 %

c o h a b it a ti n g ,

3 %

d iv

o rc

e d , .6

% se

p a -

ra te

d . 2 7

d if fe

re n t

tr ib

e s

w e re

re p re

se n te

d .

In te

rp e rs

o n a l-

p sy

c h o lo

g ic

a l

th e o ry

o f

su ic

id e .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

w a s

.8 8 .

1 0 .

B e c k

D e p

r e s s io

n In

v e n

to r y -I

I (B

D I-

II ).

A u th

o r

a n d

ye a r ;

in st

ru m

e n t

v e rs

io n

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l m

o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o m

e tr

p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e ve

l o f

e v id

e n c e

A l- T u rk

a it

O h a e ri

, 2 0 1 0 .

*A ra

b ic

v e rs

io n .

n ¼

6 2 4

c o ll e g e

st u d e n ts

fr o m

K u w

a it

a g e s

1 8 –

3 8

y e a rs

(m e a n

2 0 .8

7 0 .8

% fe

m a le

, 2 9 .2

m a le

L im

it e d

a d d it io

n a l p a rt

ic i-

p a n t

in fo

rm a ti o n

p ro

v id

e d .

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

C o n ve

rg e n t

v a li d it y

w it h

H S C

L -2

5 .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

w a s

.8 3 .

H a m

m a sh

e t

a l. ,

2 0 1 2 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n .

n ¼

3 2 2

U .S

. h e a rt

fa il u re

p a ti e n ts

. M

e a n

a g e

6 0 .7

4 ye

a rs

. 6 6 %

m a le

3 4 %

fe m

a le

5 7 %

m a rr

ie d , 4 3 %

si n g le

2 9 %

li v e d

a lo

n e . 2 4 %

c u rr

e n t

a n ti d e p re

ss a n t

u se

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

P o si

ti v e ly

c o rr

e la

te d

w it h

P H

Q -9

sc o re

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

w a s

.8 9 .

H u ff m

a n

e t

a l. ,

2 0 1 0 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n .

n ¼

1 3 1

p o st

-M I

a d u lt s

fr o m

a U

.S . u rb

a n

m e d ic

a l c e n te

r. M

e a n

a g e

6 2 .3

y e a rs

. 8 0 .2

m a le

, 1 9 .8

% fe

m a le

1 3 %

M D

D . 4 3 %

ta k in

a n ti -d

e p re

ss a n ts

. 6 3 .4

m a rr

ie d . 2 9 %

li v in

a lo

n e . 6 1 .8

% e m

p lo

y e d .

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

C u to

ff sc

o re

1 4 : se

n si

ti v it y

.8 8 , sp

e c if ic

it y

.8 4 . C

u to

ff sc

o re

1 6 :

se n si

ti v it y

.8 8 , sp

e -

c if ic

it y

.9 2 . R O

A U

C fo

r M

D D

w a s

.9 6 2 .

M ir

a n d a

e t

a l. ,

2 0 1 2 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n

n ¼

4 5

y o u n g

a d u lt

U .S

v o lu

n te

e rs

, a g e s

1 8 – 2 2 ,

se le

c te

d fr

o m

la rg

e r

sa m

p le

. M

e a n

a g e

1 8 .3

1 . n ¼

3 5

fe m

a le

n ¼

1 0

m a le

n ¼

1 3

re p o rt

e d

p re

v io

u s

su ic

id e

a tt

e m

p t.

n ¼

1 0

su ic

id a l id

e a ti o n

a t

b a se

li n e .

4 0 %

A si

a n ,

2 4 %

W h it e , 2 2 %

H is

p a n ic

, 7 %

B la

c k , 7 %

O th

e r.

D ia

th e si

s- S tr

e ss

M o d e l

o f

S u ic

id a l B

e h av

io r.

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

w a s

.9 0 . C

o n v e rg

e n t

v a li d it y

w it h

B H

S .

3 (c o n ti n u e d )

C o n ti n u e d

A u th

o r

a n d

ye a r ;

in st

ru m

e n t

v e rs

io n

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l m

o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o m

e tr

p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e ve

l o f

e v id

e n c e

L e rd

a l e t

a l. , 2 0 1 4 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n ;

N o rw

e g ia

sa m

p le

N o rw

e g ia

n a d u lt s

w h o

e x p e ri

e n c e d

fi rs

st ro

k e

(n ¼

1 0 6 ).

6 0 %

fe m

a le

, 4 0 %

m a le

. A

g e s

2 9 – 9 1

y e a rs

(m e a n

6 8 ).

7 0 %

m a rr

ie d /p

a rt

n e r ; 2 5 %

e m

p lo

y e d ; 2 9 %

a t

le a st

1 2

y e a rs

o f

e d u c a ti o n .

S tr

o k e

ty p e : 6 3 %

in fa

rc t,

8 %

h e m

o r-

rh a g e , 2 9 %

u n k n o w

n .

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

R a sc

h a n a ly

si s,

a ll

2 1

it e m

s a c c e p ta

b le

fi t.

P e rs

o n -s

e p a ra

ti o n

re li a b il it y

1 .9

9 .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

.9 0 .

K ja

e rg

a rr

d e t

a l. ,

2 0 1 4 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n ;

N o rw

e g ia

sa m

p le

n ¼

3 5 2

N o rw

e g ia

n a d u lt s.

A g e s

3 0 – 7 5

ye a rs

(m e a n

5 5 .5

). 5 2 .8

fe m

a le

, 4 7 .2

% m

a le

3 .1

% si

n g le

e p is

o d e

M D

E .

2 .5

% re

c u rr

e n t

e p i-

so d e s

M D

E .

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

w a s

.8 9 . C

u to

ff sc

o re

g re

a te

r th

a n

e q u a l

to 1 2

d e m

o n st

ra te

se n si

ti v it y

o f .8

5 a n d

sp e c if ic

it y

o f

.8 8 .

T it o v

e t

a l. , 2 0 1 1 .

*E n g li sh

V e rs

io n ;

A u st

ra li a n

S a m

p le

n ¼

1 7 2

d e p re

ss e d

A u st

ra li a n

a d u lt s,

a g e s

1 9 – 8 5

y e a rs

(m e a n

4 4 .6

). 7 5 %

fe m

a le

, 2 5 %

m a le

4 9 %

m a rr

ie d

o r

p a rt

n e r,

2 5 %

d iv

o rc

e d

o r

se p a -

ra te

d . 3 8 %

e m

p lo

ye d

fu ll

ti m

e .

5 6 %

ta k in

m e d ic

a ti o n

fo r

m o o d .

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

C o n ve

rg e n t

v a li d it y

w it h

P H

Q -9

P re

tr e a tm

e n t

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

.8 7 , p o st

-t re

a tm

e n t

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

.9 0 .

T zu

-C h i e t

a l. ,

2 0 1 0 .

*C h in

e se

V e rs

io n .

n ¼

1 2 8

T a iw

a n e se

o u tp

a -

ti e n ts

w it h

O C

D , a g e s

1 5 – 5 5

(m e a n

3 3 .5

6 4 %

m a le

, 3 6 %

fe m

a le

6 8 .7

% si

n g le

, 3 1 .3

% m

a r-

ri e d . 6 3 .3

% u n e m

p lo

ye d , 3 6 .7

e m

p lo

y e d . 8 5 .9

% li v in

w it h

fa m

il y.

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

w a s

.9 3 .

O C

D ¼

o b se

ss iv

e -c

o m

p u ls

iv e

d is

o rd

e r ;

R O

C ¼

re c e iv

e r

o p e ra

ti n g

c h a ra

c te

ri st

ic ;

B H

S ¼

B e c k

H o p e le

ss n e ss

S c a le

; M

D D ¼

m a jo

r d e p re

ss iv

e d is

o rd

e r ;

P H

Q ¼

P a ti e n t

H e a lt h

Q u e st

io n n a ir

e .

1 1 .

B e c k

D e p

r e s s io

n In

v e n

to r y -F

a s t

S c r e e n

(B D

I- F

S ).

A u th

o r

a n d

ye a r ;

in st

ru m

e n t

v e rs

io n

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l m

o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o m

e tr

p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e ve

l o f

e v id

e n c e

K li e m

e t

a l. , 2 0 1 4 .

*G e rm

a n

ve r-

si o n : S ta

n d a rd

tr a n sl

a ti o n

p ro

c e d u re

s a n d

c ro

ss -c

u lt u ra

a ss

e ss

m e n t.

n ¼

2 ,5

1 5

G e rm

a n

a d u lt s.

5 3 %

fe m

a le

, 4 7 %

m a le

A g e s

1 4

to 9 1

ye a rs

(m e a n

4 9 .4

R e p re

se n ta

ti v e

sa m

p le

fr o m

G e rm

a n

g e n e ra

p o p u la

ti o n , w

it h

o n e

d e m

o g ra

p h ic

v a ri

a b le

(n o n -G

e rm

a n

n a ti o n a l-

it y )

d if fe

ri n g

si g n if i-

c a n tl y

b e tw

e e n

st u d y

sa m

p le

a n d

g e n e ra

p o p u la

ti o n .

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

.8 4 .

E FA

h ig

h fa

c to

lo a d in

g s;

C F A

ve ry

g o o d

fi t

in d ic

e s.

C o n v e rg

e n t

v a li d it y

w it h

P H

Q -9

P H

Q ¼

P a ti e n t

H e a lt h

Q u e st

io n n a ir

e .

1 2 .

P a ti

e n

t H

e a lt

h Q

u e s ti

o n

n a ir

e -9

(P H

Q -9

A u th

o r

a n d

ye a r ;

in st

ru m

e n t

v e rs

io n

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l m

o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o m

e tr

p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e ve

l o f

e v id

e n c e

H a m

m a sh

e t

a l. ,

2 0 1 2 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n .

n ¼

3 2 2

U .S

. h e a rt

fa il u re

p a ti e n ts

. M

e a n

a g e

6 0 .7

4 ye

a rs

. 6 6 %

m a le

3 4 %

fe m

a le

5 7 %

m a rr

ie d , 4 3 %

si n g le

2 9 %

li v e d

a lo

n e . 2 4 %

c u rr

e n t

a n ti -d

e p re

ss a n t

u se

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

P o si

ti v e ly

c o rr

e la

te d

w it h

B D

I- II

sc o re

C u to

ff sc

o re

o f

1 0 :

sp e c if ic

it y

.9 2 ;

se n si

ti v it y

.7 0 .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

.8 5 .

M ir

a n d a

e t

a l. ,

2 0 1 3 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n

n ¼

5 6

U .S

. p u b li c

u n iv

e r-

si ty

st u d e n ts

, a g e s

1 8 –

2 2

(m e a n

1 8 .4

). n ¼

4 5

fe m

a le

, n ¼

1 1

m a le

3 6 %

A si

a n , 2 3 %

W h it e ,

2 0 %

H is

p a n ic

, 9 %

B la

c k ,

1 3 %

O th

e r.

S tu

d e n ts

e n d o rs

e d

a h is

to ry

o f

su ic

id a l id

e a -

ti o n . A

ls o , n ¼

2 5

p a rt

ic ip

a n ts

m a d e

p re

v io

u s

su ic

id e

a tt

e m

p t.

D ia

th e si

s- st

re ss

-h o p e -

le ss

n e ss

m o d e l o f

su ic

id a li ty

It e m

s 1 – 8

w e re

e v a lu

a te

d . C

ro n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

.8 3

a t

b a se

li n e

a n d

.7 9

a t

6 -m

o n th

fo ll o w

-u p .

R a zy

k o v

e t

a l. ,

2 0 1 2 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n .

n ¼

1 ,0

2 2

U .S

. o u tp

a ti e n ts

fr o m

th e

H e a rt

a n d

S o u l S tu

d y.

8 2 %

m a le

1 8 %

fe m

a le

. 8 2 %

w e re

a g e s

5 0 – 7 9 . n ¼

2 2 3

w it h

c u rr

e n t

M D

D .

6 0 %

W h it e , 1 6 %

B la

c k ,

1 1 %

A si

a n , 9 %

H is

p a n ic

, 3 %

O th

e r.

4 3 %

m a rr

ie d , 2 7 %

d iv

o rc

e d , 1 9 %

si n g le

1 2 %

w id

o w

e d .

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

S e n si

ti v it y

.5 4

a n d

sp e c if ic

it y

.9 0

d e te

c ti n g

m a jo

d e p re

ss io

n .

3 (c o n ti n u e d )

C o n ti n u e d

A u th

o r

a n d

ye a r ;

in st

ru m

e n t

v e rs

io n

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l m

o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o m

e tr

p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e ve

l o f

e v id

e n c e

P o la

n c o -R

o m

a n

M ir

a n d a , 2 0 1 3 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n .

n ¼

1 4 3

U .S

. a d u lt s,

a g e s

1 8 – 2 5

y e a rs

(m e a n

1 8 .6

), fr

o m

a ra

c ia

ll y

a n d

e th

n ic

a ll y

d iv

e rs

c o ll e g e . 8 0 %

fe m

a le

2 0 %

m a le

3 4 %

A si

a n

(5 1 %

n o n -U

.S .

b o rn

), 2 9 %

W h it e

(3 8 %

n o n -U

.S . b o rn

), 1 7 %

L a ti n o

(3 8 %

n o n -U

.S .

b o rn

), 1 1 %

B la

c k

(4 4 %

n o n -U

.S . b o rn

), 8 %

O th

e r.

In te

rp e rs

o n a l-

P sy

c h o lo

g ic

a l

T h e o ry

o f

S u ic

id a l

B e h av

io r.

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

.8 2

a t

b a se

li n e

a n d

.8 3

a t

fo ll o w

-u p .

C o rr

e la

ti o n

b e tw

e e n

b a se

li n e

a n d

fo ll o w

-u p

sc o re

s .4

7 .

C o n v e rg

e n t

v a li d it y

w it h

B S S I.

In a g a k i e t

a l. , 2 0 1 3 .

*J a p a n e se

v e rs

io n .

n ¼

1 1 6

Ja p a n e se

o u tp

a ti -

e n ts

(n ¼

8 0

ra n d o m

se le

c te

d b y

P H

Q -9

sc o re

; n ¼

3 6

n o n ra

n -

d o m

ly in

c lu

d e d

fo r

sc re

e n in

g p ro

b a b le

fo r

d e p re

ss io

n ).

n ¼

5 1 1

to ta

l su

b je

c ts

w h o

w e re

th e

ta rg

e t

p o p u -

la ti o n

to e st

im a te

v a li d it y : a g e s

2 0

a n d

o ld

e r

(m e a n

7 3 .5

n ¼

3 0 3

fe m

a le

. n ¼

2 0 8

m a le

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

S e n si

ti v it y

a n d

sp e c if i-

c it y

o f

it e m

-9 w

a s

.7 0

a n d

.9 7 , re

sp e c -

ti v e ly

. S e n si

ti v it y

a n d

sp e c if ic

it y

fo r

d e p re

ss io

n w

e re

.8 6

a n d

.8 5 , re

sp e c -

ti v e ly

, w

it h

c u to

p o in

ts o f

4 /5

K h a m

se h

e t

a l. ,

2 0 1 1 .

*I ra

n ia

n v e rs

io n .

n ¼

1 8 5

Ir a n ia

n a d u lt s

w it h

ty p e

2 d ia

b e te

s. M

e a n

a g e

5 6 .1

y e a rs

. 5 2 %

fe m

a le

, 4 8 %

m a le

4 3 .2

% M

D D

. 5 4 .1

% le

th a n

8 th

g ra

d e

e d u c a -

ti o n . 5 1 .4

% lo

w fa

m il y

in c o m

e .

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

R O

C A

U C

fo r

M D

.8 3 . S e n si

ti v it y

.7 3 ;

sp e c if ic

it y

.7 6 .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

.8 7 .

3 (c o n ti n u e d )

C o n ti n u e d

A u th

o r

a n d

ye a r ;

in st

ru m

e n t

v e rs

io n

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l m

o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o m

e tr

p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e ve

l o f

e v id

e n c e

L ie

e t

a l. , 2 0 1 5 .

*E n g li sh

ve rs

io n ;

In te

rn a ti o n a l

sa m

p le

n ¼

9 6 9

in -

a n d

o u t-

p a ti e n ts

w it h

a d v a n c e d

c a n c e r,

fr o m

E P C

R C

C S A

p a ll ia

ti v e

c a re

st u d y.

N o rw

e g ia

n ,

A u st

ri a n , It

a li a n , S w

is s,

E n g li sh

, A

u st

ra li a n ,

C a n a d ia

n , a n d

G e rm

a n

a d u lt s.

� 5 0 %

m a le

, �

5 0 %

fe m

a le

A g e

1 8

y e a rs

a n d

o ld

e r

(m e a n

6 2 .1

8 ).

2 6 %

su r-

v iv

a l 1 – 9 0

d ay

s, 2 7 %

su rv

iv a l 9 1 – 2 7 0

d ay

4 7 %

su rv

iv a l 2 7 1 +

d ay

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

In te

rr a te

r re

li a b il it y,

C o h e n ’s

K a p p a , w

a s

.8 1 , w

it h

9 5 .4

% o f

p a ti e n ts

c o n si

st e n tl y

c a te

g o ri

ze d .

M e rz

e t

a l. , 2 0 1 1 .

*E n g li sh

a n d

S p a n is

h V e rs

io n s.

n ¼

4 7 9

U .S

. H

is p a n ic

A m

e ri

c a n

w o m

e n

(n ¼

2 4 5

E n g li sh

sp e a k -

in g ; n ¼

2 3 4

S p a n is

sp e a k in

g ).

M e a n

a g e

3 6 .9

ye a rs

1 0 0 %

fe m

a le

sa m

p le

6 3 .7

% o f

E n g li sh

sp e a k -

in g

b o rn

in U

.S . 8 7 .6

o f

S p a n is

h sp

e a k in

b o rn

in M

e x ic

o .

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

O n e -f

a c to

r so

lu ti o n

g o o d

fi t

fo r

d a ta

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

o f

E n g li sh

v e rs

io n

.8 4 .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

o f

S p a n is

h v e rs

io n

.8 5 .

P h e la

n e t

a l. , 2 0 1 0 .

*E n g li sh

V e rs

io n .

n ¼

7 1

e ld

e rl

y U

.S . a d u lt s

a g e s

6 5

ye a rs

a n d

o ld

e r

(m e a n

7 8 ).

6 2 %

fe m

a le

3 8 %

m a le

A u th

o rs

re p o rt

th e re

w e re

‘‘ 3 2 %

n o n -W

h it e

p a rt

ic ip

a n ts

. A

d u lt s

h a d

tw o

o r

m o re

c o m

o rb

id it ie

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

S p e c if ic

it y

.8 0

a n d

se n -

si ti v it y

.8 8 . R O

A U

C fo

r M

D D

w a s

.8 7 .

R a th

o re

e t

a l. ,

2 0 1 4 .

*E n g li sh

V e rs

io n .

n ¼

2 3 7

U .S

. e p il e p sy

p a ti e n ts

. 6 8 .8

% fe

m a le

3 1 .2

% m

a le

. A

g e s

1 8 –

7 7

y e a rs

(m e a n

4 0 .6

3 5 .4

% li fe

ti m

e m

o o d

d is

o rd

e r ; 3 0 .3

% c u rr

e n t

o r

li fe

ti m

e M

D D

; 5 .1

li fe

ti m

e b ip

o la

d is

o rd

e r.

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

C u to

ff p o in

t o f

1 0 :

se n si

ti v it y

.9 2 ; sp

e -

c if ic

it y

.7 4 . C

u to

p o in

t o f

1 5 : se

n si

ti v it y

.6 7 ; sp

e c if ic

it y

.9 5 .

3 (c o n ti n u e d )

C o n ti n u e d

A u th

o r

a n d

ye a r ;

in st

ru m

e n t

v e rs

io n

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l m

o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o m

e tr

p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e ve

l o f

e v id

e n c e

T it o v

e t

a l. , 2 0 1 1 .

*E n g li sh

V e rs

io n ;

A u st

ra li a n

S a m

p le

n ¼

1 7 2

d e p re

ss e d

A u st

ra li a n

a d u lt s,

a g e s

1 9 – 8 5

y e a rs

(m e a n

4 4 .6

). 7 5 %

fe m

a le

, 2 5 %

m a le

4 9 %

m a rr

ie d /p

a rt

n e r,

2 5 %

d iv

o rc

e d /s

e p a ra

te d .

3 8 %

e m

p lo

y e d

fu ll -

ti m

e .

5 6 %

ta k in

g m

e d i-

c a ti o n

fo r

m o o d .

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

C o n ve

rg e n t

v a li d it y

w it h

B D

I- II .

P re

tr e a tm

e n t

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

.7 4 , p o st

-t re

a tm

e n t

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

.8 1 .

U e b e la

c k e r

e t

a l. ,

2 0 1 1 .

*E n g li sh

V e rs

io n .

n ¼

1 6 6

U .S

. p ri

m a ry

c a re

p a ti e n ts

w it h

d e p re

si v e

sy m

p to

m s.

8 2 .7

fe m

a le

, 1 7 .3

% m

a le

M e a n

a g e

3 9 .8

ye a rs

8 9 .1

% W

h it e , 1 0 .9

‘‘ M

in o ri

ty ’’ .

1 3 %

L a ti n o

e th

n ic

it y,

8 7 %

n o n -

L a ti n o

e th

n ic

it y.

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

S p e c if ic

it y

o f

it e m

.8 4 ; se

n si

ti v it y

.6 9 .

W h o le

sc a le

sp e c if i-

c it y

.8 4 ; se

n si

ti v it y

w a s

.6 9 .

Z h o n g

e t

a l. , 2 0 1 4 .

*S p a n is

h V e rs

io n .

n ¼

1 ,5

1 7

P e ru

v ia

n p re

g -

n a n t

w o m

e n

a g e s

1 8 –

4 9

y e a rs

(m e a n

2 8 ),

u n d e r

1 6

w e e k s

g e st

a ti o n .

7 5 %

M e st

iz o s;

5 6 .4

u n e m

p lo

ye d . 6 8 %

m u l-

ti g ra

v id

a , 5 0 %

n u ll ip

a r-

o u s.

5 8 %

u n p la

n n e d

p re

g n a n c y.

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

.8 1 .

E FA

/C F A

fa c to

a n a ly

se s

c o n fi rm

e d

so m

a ti c

a n d

n o n so

m a ti c

it e m

s a n d

d e m

o n st

ra te

g o o d n e ss

o f

fi t.

Z u it h o ff

e t

a l. ,

2 0 1 0 .

*D u tc

h V e rs

io n .

*T ra

n sl

a ti n g

a n d

b a c k -t

ra n sl

a ti n g

p ro

c e d u re

u ti li ze

d .

n ¼

1 ,3

3 8

a d u lt s

fr o m

th e

N e th

e rl

a n d s.

M e a n

a g e

5 1

y e a rs

. 6 3 %

fe m

a le

3 7 %

m a le

2 .6

% m

o o d

re la

te d

p ro

b le

m s.

1 3 %

M D

D .

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

R O

C a n a ly

si s

A U

C fo

M D

D w

a s

.8 7 .

S e n si

ti v it y

a n d

sp e -

c if ic

it y

w e re

b o th

.8 2 . C

ro n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

.8 8 .

R O

C ¼

re c e iv

e r

o p e ra

ti n g

c h a ra

c te

ri st

ic ;

M D

D ¼

m a jo

r d e p re

ss iv

e d is

o rd

e r;

E P C

R C

C S A ¼

E u ro

p e a n

P a ll ia

ti ve

C a re

R e se

a rc

h C

o ll a b o ra

ti v e -C

o m

p u te

S y m

p to

m A

ss e ss

m e n t

S tu

d y.

1 3 .

T e le

p h

o n

e -L

in k e d

C o

m m

u n

ic a ti

o n

P a ti

e n

t H

e a lt

h Q

u e s ti

o n

n a ir

e -9

(T L

C -P

H Q

-9 ).

A u th

o r

a n d

ye a r ;

in st

ru m

e n t

v e rs

io n .

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l m

o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o m

e tr

p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e ve

l o f

e v id

e n c e

F a rz

a n fa

r e t

a l. ,

2 0 1 4 .

*E n g li sh

V e rs

io n .

n ¼

8 0

U .S

. a d u lt s

d iv

id e d

in to

fo u r

d e p re

ss io

c a te

g o ri

e s:

n o n e

(n ¼

2 4 ),

m il d

(n ¼

1 4 ),

m o d e ra

te (n ¼

2 6 ),

se v e re

(n ¼

1 6 ).

5 8 %

fe m

a le

. M

e a n

a g e

3 8 .4

y e a rs

4 5 %

fi rs

t d e p re

ss io

n d ia

g -

n o si

s. 5 1 %

n o t

m a rr

ie d /

n o

p a rt

n e r.

5 1 %

B a c h e lo

r’ s

d e g re

e o r

h ig

h e r.

5 7 %

W h it e .

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

T e st

-r e te

st re

li a b il it y

.7 6 . C

ro n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

ra n g e d

fr o m

.9 1 3

to .9

1 8 . S tr

o n g

a g re

e m

e n t

w it h

ID S

in a ll

d e p re

ss iv

c a te

g o ri

e s.

S e n si

ti v it y

.8 2 , sp

e -

c if ic

it y

.9 0

fo r

m o d -

e ra

te -p

lu s

d e p re

ss io

n .

F in

e e t

a l. , 2 0 1 3 .

*E n g li sh

V e rs

io n .

n ¼

4 9 8

U .S

. N

a ti o n a l

G u a rd

so ld

ie rs

a g e s

1 7 – 6 0

y e a rs

(m e a n

3 1 .0

4 ).

8 8 %

m a le

, 1 2 %

fe m

a le

8 9 .1

% W

h it e , 6 .8

% B

la c k ,

2 .4

% H

is p a n ic

. 3 4 .7

n e ve

r d e p lo

y e d , 3 0 %

d e p lo

y e d

o n c e , 2 0 .4

d e p lo

y e d

tw ic

e ,

8 .5

d e p lo

y e d

th re

e ti m

e s.

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

.8 4 .

T o ta

l sc

o re

s p re

d ic

te d

S C

ID M

D E

d ia

g n o si

s w

it h

m o d -

e ra

te a c c u ra

c y.

C u to

ff sc

o re

o f

1 0

h a d

o p ti m

a l b a la

n c e

o f

se n si

ti v it y

(. 5 6 )

a n d

sp e c if ic

it y

(. 8 6 ).

1 4 .

S h

e e h

a n

S u

ic id

a li ty

T r a c k in

g S

c a le

(S -S

T S

A u th

o r

a n d

Y e a r ;

In st

ru m

e n t

V e rs

io n .

R e se

a rc

h P a rt

ic ip

a n t

D a ta

R e se

a rc

h P a rt

ic ip

a n t

D a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l M

o d e l

S a m

p le

P sy

c h o m

e tr

P ro

p e ri

te s

L e ve

l o f

E v id

e n c e

P re

ti e t

a l. , 2 0 1 3 .

*E n g li sh

V e rs

io n ;

It a li a n

S a m

p le

n ¼

3 0 3

It a li a n

u n iv

e r-

si ty

st u d e n ts

a g e s

1 8 – 4 0

y e a rs

(m e a n

2 3 .5

). 5 8 %

fe m

a le

4 2 %

m a le

4 1 %

st a b le

re la

ti o n sh

ip ,

1 .3

% m

a rr

ie d .

N o n c li n ic

a l sa

m p le

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

T e st

– re

te st

st a b il it y :

.8 3

g lo

b a l sc

o re

, .8

id e a ti o n , .4

6 su

ic id

a l

b e h av

io rs

G u tt

m a n ’s

la m

b d a 2 :

.8 8

g lo

b a l sc

o re

, .8

id e a ti o n , a n d

.8 3

su ic

id a l b e h av

io rs

C ri

te ri

o n

v a li d it y

e st

a b li sh

e d .

C o n v e rg

e n t

v a li d it y

w it h

G H

Q ; d iv

e r-

g e n t

v a li d it y

w it h

R S E S

a n d

M O

S S S .

F a c to

r lo

a d in

g s

a b o ve

.7 0 , g o o d n e ss

o f

fi t

e x c e ll e n t.

G H

Q ¼

G e n e ra

l H

e a lt h

Q u e st

io n n a ir

e ; M

O S S S ¼

M o d if ie

d S o c ia

l S u p p o rt

S u rv

e y ; R

S E S ¼

R o se

n b e rg

S e lf -E

st e e m

S c a le

1 5 .

S e lf

-I n

ju r y

Im p

li c it

A s s o

c ia

ti o

n T

e s t

(S I-

IA T

A u th

o r

a n d

ye a r ;

in st

ru m

e n t

v e rs

io n .

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l m

o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o m

e tr

p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e ve

l o f

e v id

e n c e

R a n d a ll

e t

a l. , 2 0 1 3 .

*E n g li sh

V e rs

io n ;

C a n a d ia

S a m

p le

n ¼

1 0 7

C a n a d ia

n p a ti e n ts

w it h

re c e n t

se lf -h

a rm

o r

su ic

id a l id

e a ti o n ,

a g e s

1 8

ye a rs

a n d

o ld

e r.

n ¼

5 6

m a le

, n ¼

5 0

fe m

a le

, n ¼

tr a n sg

e n d e r.

n ¼

9 5

W h it e , n ¼

6 F ir

N a ti o n s

o r

M e ti s,

n ¼

O th

e r.

7 5 .7

% h is

to ry

o f

se lf -h

a rm

. n ¼

5 2

si n g le

n ¼

3 7

m a rr

ie d

o r

p a rt

n e r,

a n d

n ¼

1 8

d iv

o rc

e d

o r

w id

o w

e d .

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

D e a th

/L if e

IA T

si g n if i-

c a n tl y

p re

d ic

te d

se lf -h

a rm

. H

ig h

c u to

ff : se

n si

ti v it y

9 6 .6

% ; sp

e c if ic

it y

5 3 .9

% . L o w

c u to

ff :

se n si

ti v it y

5 8 .6

% ;

sp e c if ic

it y

9 6 .2

% .

1 6 .

R e a s o

n s

fo r

L iv

in g

In v e n

to r y

(R F

L ).

A u th

o r

a n d

ye a r ;

in st

ru m

e n t

v e rs

io n .

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l m

o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o m

e tr

p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e ve

l o f

e v id

e n c e

S e g a l e t

a l. , 2 0 1 2 .

*E n g li sh

V e rs

io n .

n ¼

1 0 9

U .S

. c o m

m u -

n it y -d

w e ll in

g o ld

e r

a d u lt s,

a g e s

6 0 – 9 5

(m e a n

7 1 .4

). 6 1 %

fe m

a le

, 3 9 %

m a le

A u th

o rs

in d ic

a te

th e

sa m

p le

w a s

‘‘ 8 8 %

E u ro

p e a n

A m

e ri

c a n .’’

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

.9 4 .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

su b sc

a le

s: .9

4 su

rv i-

v a l o r

c o p in

g , .8

re sp

o n si

b il it y

fa m

il y,

.7 8

c h il d

c o n c e rn

s, .7

8 fe

a r

o f

su ic

id e , .8

1 fe

a r

o f

so c ia

l d is

a p p ro

v a l,

a n d

.8 2

m o ra

o b je

c ti o n s.

W o o d s

e t

a l. , 2 0 1 3 .

*E n g li sh

V e rs

io n .

n ¼

1 4 6

U .S

. A

fr ic

a n

A m

e ri

c a n

w o m

e n , a g e s

1 8 – 6 4

(m e a n

3 5 .6

). A

p a rt

ic ip

a n ts

w it h

su i-

c id

e a tt

e m

p t

in th

p re

v io

u s

1 2

m o n th

N o n -m

o th

e rs

n ¼

3 0 ;

m o th

e rs

n ¼

1 1 6 . 8 6 %

u n e m

p lo

ye d . 5 1 .3

h o m

e le

ss . M

in o ri

ty ,

in n e r

c it y,

a t-

ri sk

p o p u la

ti o n .

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

w a s

.9 6 . D

is c ri

m in

a te

v a li d it y

b e tw

e e n

R F L

a n d

su ic

id a l

id e a ti o n .

(c o n ti n u e d )

C o n ti n u e d

A u th

o r

a n d

ye a r ;

in st

ru m

e n t

v e rs

io n .

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

R e se

a rc

h p a rt

ic ip

a n t

d a ta

T h e o re

ti c a l m

o d e l

S a m

p le

p sy

c h o m

e tr

p ro

p e rt

ie s

L e ve

l o f

e v id

e n c e

A is

h v a ry

a e t

a l. ,

2 0 1 4 .

*E n g li sh

a n d

M a la

V e rs

io n s.

*T ra

n sl

a ti n g

a n d

b a c k -t

ra n sl

a ti n g

p ro

c e d u re

u ti li ze

d .

n ¼

4 8 3

M a la

y si

a n s

(2 8 3

p sy

c h ia

tr ic

p a ti e n ts

a n d

2 0 0

n o n p sy

c h ia

tr ic

m e d ic

a l p a ti e n ts

). A

g e s

1 8 – 7 5

(m e a n

4 2 ).

6 1 .1

% fe

m a le

5 3 .4

% M

a la

y s,

3 2 .5

C h in

e se

, 1 1 %

In d ia

n ,

3 .1

% O

th e r.

2 9 .2

% o f

to ta

l sa

m p le

e n d o rs

e d

a p re

v io

u s

su ic

id e

a tt

e m

p t.

N o t

d is

c u ss

e d .

C ro

n b a c h ’s

a lp

h a

.9 4 .

E FA

/C F A

su p p o rt

e d

6 fa

c to

r o b li q u e

m o d e l fi t.

C o n v e rg

e n t

v a li d it y

w it h

P A

N S I-

P, R

S E ,

A T

H , P S R

, a n d

S W

L . D

is c ri

m in

a te

v a li d it y

w it h

D A

S S ,

B H

S , a n d

P A

N S I-

N .

P A

N S I¼

P o si

ti v e

A n d

N e g a ti v e

S u ic

id e

Id e a ti o n

In v e n to

ry ;

B H

S ¼

B e c k

H o p e le

ss n e ss

S c a le

; R

S E ¼

R o se

n b e rg

S e lf -E

st e e m

; A

T H ¼

A d u lt

T ra

it H

o p e ;

P S R ¼

P ro

v is

io n

o f

S o c ia

l R

e la

ti o n s;

S W

L ¼

S a ti sf

a c ti o n

w it h

L if e ; D

A S S ¼

D e p re

ss io

n A

n x ie

ty S tr

e ss

S c a le

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica- tion of this article.

References

Aishvarya, S., Maniam, T., Karuthan, C., Sidi, H., Ruzyanei, N., & Oei, T. P. (2014). Psychometric properties and validation for reasons for living inventory in an out-

patient clinical population in Malaysia. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 55, S107–S113. doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2013.06.010

Al-Turkait, F. A., & Ohaeri, J. U. (2010). Dimensional and hierarchical models of depres-

sion using the Beck depression inventory-II in an Arab college student sample. BMC Psychiatry, 10, 1–14. doi:10.1186/1471-244X-10-60

American Psychiatric Association. (2010). Practice guideline for the assessment and treatment of patients with suicidal behaviors. Arlington, VA. Retrieved from

http://psychiatryonline.org/pb/assets/raw/sitewide/practice_guidelines/guidelines/ suicide.pdf

American Psychological Association. (2012). Diversity & suicidal behavior. American

Psychological Association: Fact Sheet. Section VII. Retrieved from http://www. div12.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Suicide-and-Diversity-Div12.pdf

Ball, R., & Steer, R. A. (2003). Mean beck depression inventory-II scores of outpatients

with dysthymic or recurrent episode major depressive disorders. Psychological Reports, 93, 507–512. doi:10.2466/pr0.2003.93.2.507

Beck, A. T., Brown, G. K., & Steer, R. A. (1997). Psychometric characteristics of the scale for suicide ideation with psychiatric outpatients. Behavior Research and Therapy, 35,

1039–1046. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(97)00073-9 Beck, A. T., Kovacs, M., & Weissman, A. (1979). Assessment of suicidal intention: The

scale for suicide ideation. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 4, 343–352.

doi:10.1037/0022-006Z.47.2.343 Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1984). Internal consistencies of the original and revised beck

depression inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 1365–1367. ISSN: 0021-9762.

Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1991). Manual for the Beck scale for suicide ideation. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., Ball, R., Ciervo, C. A., & Kabat, M. (1997). Use of the Beck

anxiety and Beck depression inventories for primary care with medical outpatients. Assessment, 4, 211–219.

Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., Ball, R., & Ranieri, W. (1996). Comparison of Beck depression inventories –IA and –II in psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment,

67, 588–597. ISSN: 0022-3891. Bender, T. W., Gordon, K. H., Bresin, K., & Joiner, T. E. (2011). Impulsivity and

suicidality: A test of the mediating role of painful experiences. Journal of Affective

Disorders, 129, 301–307. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2010.07.023

Kreuze and Lamis 83

http://psychiatryonline.org/pb/assets/raw/sitewide/practice_guidelines/guidelines/suicide.pdf

http://www.div12.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Suicide-and-Diversity-Div12.pdf

Braveman, P., Egerter, S., & Mockenhaupt, R. (2011). Broadening the focus: The need to address the social determinants of health. American Journal of Preventative Medicine,

40, 4–18. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2010.10.002 Brown, G. K. (2001). A review of suicide assessment measures for intervention research with

adults and older adults. GK Brown. PDF retrieved from the Suicide Prevention

Resource Center http://www.sprc.org/sites/sprc.org/files/library/BrownReview AssessmentMeasuresAdultsOlderAdults.pdf

Bryan, C. J. (2011). The clinical utility of a brief measure of perceived burdensomeness and thwarted belongingness for the detection of suicidal military personnel. Journal of

Clinical Psychology, 67, 981–992. doi:10.1002/jclp.20726 Bryan, C. J., Hernandez, A. M., Sybil, A., & Clemans, T. (2013). Combat exposure and

suicide risk in two samples of military personnel. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69,

64–77. doi:10.1002/jclp.21932 Bryan, C. J., & Rudd, D. M. (2012). Life stressors, emotional distress, and trauma-related

thoughts occurring in the 24 h preceding active duty U.S. soldiers’ suicide attempts.

Journal of Psychiatric Research, 46, 843–848. doi:10/1016/j.jpsychires.2012.03.012 Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Years of potential life lost (YPLL)

reports, 1999–2013. Atlanta, Georgia. Retrieved from http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/

ncipc/ypll10.html Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). The social-ecological model: A frame-

work for prevention. Injury Prevention & Control: Division of Violence Prevention. Atlanta, Georgia. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/overview/

social-ecologicalmodel.html Chu, J., Floyd, R., Diep, H., Pardo, S., Goldblum, P., & Bongar, B. (2013). A tool for the

culturally competent assessment of suicide: The cultural assessment of risk for suicide

(CARS) measure. Psychological Assessment, 25, 424–434. doi:10.1037/a0031264 Coric, V., Stock, E. G., Pultz, J., Marcus, R., & Sheehan, D. V. (2009). Sheehan suicid-

ality tracking scale (Sheehan-STS): Preliminary results from a multicenter clinical trial

in generalized anxiety disorder. Psychiatry (Edgmont), 6, 26–31. Cull, J. G., & Gill, W. S. (1982). Suicide probability scale. Los Angeles, CA: Western

Psychological Services. De Baradis, D., Serroni, N., Marini, S., Rapini, G., Carano, A., Valchera, A., . . . Di

Giannantonio, M. (2014). Alexithymia, suicidal ideation, and serum lipid levels among drug-naı̈ve outpatients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 125–130. doi:10.1590/1516-4446-2013-1189

De Beradis, D., Campanella, D., Serroni, N., Moschetta, F. S., Di Emidio, F., Conti, C., . . . Di Giannantonio, M. (2013). Alexithymia, suicide risk and serum lipid levels among outpatients with panic disorder. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 54, 517–522.

doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2012.12.013 Ellis, T. E., Rufino, K. A., & Green, K. L. (2016). Implicit measure of life/death orien-

tation predicts response of suicidal ideation to treatment in psychiatric inpatients.

Archives of Suicide Research, 20(1), 59–68. doi:10.1080/13811118.2015.1004483 Farzanfar, R., Hereen, T., Fava, J., Davis, J., Vachon, L., & Friedman, R. (2014).

Psychometric properties of an automated telephone-based PHQ-9. Telemedicine and e-Health, 20, 115–121. doi:10.1089/tmj.2013.0158

84 OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying 77(1)

http://www.sprc.org/sites/sprc.org/files/library/BrownReviewAssessmentMeasuresAdultsOlderAdults.pdf

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/ypll10.html

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/overview/social-ecologicalmodel.html

Fine, T. H., Contractor, A. A., Tamburrino, M., Elhai, J. D., Prescott, M. R., Cohen, G. H., . . . Calabrese, J. R. (2013). Validation of the telephone-administered PHQ-9

against in-person administered SCID-I major depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 150, 1000–1007. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2013.05.029

Freedenthal, S., Lamis, D. A., Osman, A., Kahlo, D., & Gutierrez, P. M. (2011).

Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the interpersonal needs quiestionnaire- 12 in samples of men and women. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67, 609–623. doi:10.1002/jclp.20782

Friedman, R. H., Stollerman, J. E., Mahoney, D. M., & Rozenblyum, L. (1997). The

virtual visit: Using telecommunications technology to take care of patients. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 4, 413–425. ISSN: 1067-5027.

Hammash, M. H., Hall, L. A., Lennie, T. A., Heo, S., Chung, M. L., Lee, K. S., & Moser,

D. K. (2012). Psychometrics of the PHQ-9 as a symptom measure of depressive symp- toms in patients with heart failure. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 12, 446–453. doi:10.1177/1474515112468068

Hill, R. M., Rey, Y., Marin, C. E., Sharp, C., Green, K. L., & Pettit, J. W. (2014). Evaluating the interpersonal needs questionnaire: Comparison of the reliability, factor structure, and predictive validity across five versions. Suicide and Life-

Threatening Behavior, 45, 302–314. doi:10.1111/sltb.12129 Horon, R., McManus, T., Schmollinger, J., Barr, T., & Jimenez, M. (2013). A study of

the use and interpretation of standardized suicide risk assessment: Measures within a psychiatrically hospitalized correctional population. Suicide and Life-Threatening

Behavior, 43, 17–38. doi:10.1111/j.1943-278X.2012.00124.x Huffman, J. C., Doughty, C. T., Januzzi, J. L., Pirl, W. F., Smith, F. A., & Fricchione,

G. L. (2010). Screening for major depression in post-myocardial infarction patients:

Operating characteristics of the Beck depression inventory-II. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 40, 187–197. doi:10.2190/PM.40.2.e

Husain, N., Afsar, S., Ara, J., Fayyaz, H., Rahman, R. U., Tomenson, B., . . . Chaudhry,

I. B. (2014). Brief psychological intervention after self-harm: Randomised controlled trial from Pakistan. British Journal of Psychiatry, 204, 462–470. doi: 10.1192/ bjp.bp.113.138370

Inagaki, M., Ohtsuki, T., Yonemoto, N., Kawashima, Y., Saitoh, A., Oikawa,

Y., . . . Yamada, M. (2013). Validity of the patient health questionnaire (PHQ)-9 and PHQ-2 in general internal medicine in primary care at a Japanese rural hospital: A cross-sectional study. General Hospital Psychiatry, 35, 592–597. doi:10.1016/

j.genhosppsych.2013.08.001 Joiner, T. E. (2005). Why people die by suicide. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Joiner, T. E., Pfaff, J. J., & Acres, J. G. (2002). A brief screening tool for suicidal symptoms in adolescents and young adults in general health settings: Reliability and validity data from the Australian national general practice youth suicide pro-

ject. Behavior Research and Therapy, 40, 471–481. doi:10.1016/S0005- 7967(01)00017-1

Jon, W. H., Lee, E. J., & Park, J. S. (2013). Effects of a suicide prevention programme for hospitalised patients with mental illness in South Korea. Journal of Clinical Nursing,

23, 1845–1856. doi:10.1111/jocn.12417

Kreuze and Lamis 85

Khamseh, M. E., Baradaran, H. R., Javanbakht, A., Mirghorbani, M., Yadollahi, Z., & Malek, M. (2011). Comparison of the CES-D and PHQ-9 depression scales in people with

type 2 diabetes in Tehran, Iran. BMC Psychiatry, 11, 1–6. doi:10.1186/1471-244X-11-61 Kim, S., Ha, J. H., Yu, J., Park, D. H., & Ryu, S. H. (2014). Path analysis of suicide

ideation in older people. International Psychogeriatrics, 26, 509–515. doi:10.1017/

S1041610213002366 Kjaergarrd, M., Elisabeth, C., Wang, A., Waterloo, K., & Jorde, R. (2014). A study of the

psychometric properties of the Beck depression inventory-II, the Montgomery and Asberg depression rating scale, and the hospital anxiety and depression scale in a

sample from a healthy population. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 55, 83–89. doi:10.1111/sjop.12090

Kliem, S., Moble, T., Zenger, M., & Brahler, E. (2014). Reliability and validity of the

beck depression inventory-fast screen for medical patients in the general German population. Journal of Affective Disorders, 156, 236–239. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2013.11.024

Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. (2001). The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief

depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16, 606–613. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x

Lerdal, A., Kottorp, A., Gay, C. L., Grov, E. K., & Lee, K. A. (2014). Rasch analysis of

the Beck depression inventory-II in stroke survivors: A cross-sectional survey. Journal of Affective Disorders, 158, 48–52. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2014.01.013

Li, H., Xie, W., Luo, X., Fu, R., Shi, C., Ying, X., . . . Wang, X. (2014). Clarifying the role of psychological pain in the risks of suicidal ideation and suicidal acts among patients

with major depressive episodes. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 44, 78–88. doi:10.1111.sltb.12056

Lie, H. C., Hjermstad, M. J., Fayers, P., Finset, A., Kaasa, S., & Loge, J. H. (2015).

Depression in advanced cancer—assessment challenges and associations with disease load. Journal of Affective Disorders, 173, 176–184. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2014.11.006

Lim, H. W., Song, H. S., Hwang, Y. H., Lee, H. W., Suh, C. K., Park, S. P., & Kwon,

S. H. (2010). Predictors of suicidal ideation in people with epilepsy living in Korea. Journal of Clinical Neurology, 6, 81–88. doi:10.3988/jcn.2010.6.2.81

Linehan, M. M., Goodstein, J. L., Nielsen, S. L., & Chiles, J. A. (1983). Reasons for staying alive when you are thinking of killing yourself: The reasons for living inven-

tory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 276–286. doi:10.1037/0022- 006X.51.2.276

Luxton, D. D., Rudd, M. D., Reger, M. A., & Gahm, G. A. (2011). A psychometric study

of the suicide ideation scale. Archives of Suicide Research, 15, 250–258. doi:10.1080/ 13811118.2011.589720

Merz, E. L., Malcarne, V. L., Roesch, S. C., Riley, N., & Sadler, G. R. (2011). A multi-

group confirmatory factor analysis of the patient health questionnaire-9 among English- and Spanish-speaking Latinas. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 309–316. doi:10.1037/a0023883

Metalsky, G. I., & Joiner, T. E. (1997). The hopelessness depression symptom question- naire. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21, 359–384.

Miranda, R., Gallagher, M., Bauchner, B., Vaysman, R., & Marroquin, B. (2012). Cognitive inflexibility as a prospective predictor of suicidal ideation among young

86 OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying 77(1)

adults with a suicide attempt history. Depression and Anxiety, 29, 180–186. doi:10.1002/da.20915

Miranda, R., Valderrama, J., Tsypes, A., Gadol, E., & Gallagher, M. (2013). Cognitive inflexibility and suicidal ideation: Mediating role of brooding and hopelessness. Psychiatry Research, 1, 174–181. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2013.02.033

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6, e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097

National Guideline Clearinghouse. (2014). Clinical practice guideline for the prevention

and treatment of suicidal behavior. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Retrieved from http://www.guideline.gov/content.aspx? id¼48046&search¼suicide+ideation

Naud, H., & Daigle, M. S. (2010). Predictive validity of the suicide probability scale in a male inmate population. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 32, 333–342. doi:10.1007/s10862-009-9159-8

Nock, M. K., & Banaji, M. R. (2007a). Assessment of self-injurious thoughts using a behavioral test. American Journal of Psychiatry, 164, 820–823. doi:10.1176/ ajp.2007.164.5.820

Nock, M. K., & Banaji, M. R. (2007b). Prediction of suicide ideation and attempts among adolescents using a brief performance-based test. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 707–715. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.75.5.707

Nock, M. K., Park, J. M., Finn, C. T., Deliberto, T. L., Dour, H. J., & Banaji, M. R.

(2010). Measuring the suicidal mind: Implicit cognition predicts suicidal behavior. Psychological Science, 21, 511–517. doi:10.1177/0956797610364762

O’Connor, R. C., Smyth, R., Ferguson, E., Ryan, C., & Williams, J. M. (2013).

Psychological processes and repeat suicidal behavior: A four-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81, 1137–1143. doi:10.1037/ a0033751

O’Keefe, V. M., & Wingate, L. R. (2013). The role of hope and optimism in suicide risk for American Indians/Alaska natives. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 43, 621–633. doi:10.1111/sltb.12044

O’Riley, A. A., & Fiske, A. (2012). Emphasis on autonomy and propensity for suicidal

behavior in younger and older adults. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 42, 394–404. doi:10.1111/j.1943-278X.2012.00098.x

Osman, A., Bagge, C. L., Guiterrez, P. M., Konick, L. C., Kopper, B. A., & Barrios,

F. X. (2001). The suicidal behaviors questionnaire-revised (SBQ-R): Validation with clinical and nonclinical samples. Psychological Assessment, 8, 443–454. doi:10.1177.107319110100800409

Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine. (2011). Levels of evidence. Oxford, England: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cebm.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CEBM- Levels-of-Evidence-2.1.pdf

Panagioti, M., Gooding, P. A., & Nicholas, T. (2012). Hopelessness, defeat, and entrap- ment in posttraumatic stress disorder: Their association with suicidal behavior and severity of depression. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 200, 676–683. doi:10.1097/NMD.0b013e3182613f91

Kreuze and Lamis 87

http://www.guideline.gov/content.aspx?id48046&searchsuicideideation

http://www.cebm.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CEBM-Levels-of-Evidence-2.1.pdf

Phelan, E., Williams, B., Meeker, K., Bonn, K., Frederick, J., LoGerfo, J., & Snowden, M. (2010). A study of the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-9 in primary care elderly.

BMC Family Practice, 11, 1–9. doi:10.1186/1471-2296-11-63 Pinninti, N., Steer, R. A., Rissmiller, D. J., Nelson, S., & Beck, A. T. (2002). Use of the

Beck Scale for suicide ideation with psychiatric inpatients diagnosed with schizophre-

nia, schizoaffective, or bipolar disorders. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40, 1071– 1079. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(02)00002-5

Polanco-Roman, L., & Miranda, R. (2013). Culturally related stress, hopelessness, and vulnerability to depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation in emerging adulthood.

Behavior Therapy, 44, 75–87. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2012.07.002 Preti, A., Sheehan, D. V., Coric, V., Distinto, M., Pitanti, M., Vacca, I., . . . Petretto, D.

V. (2013). Sheehan suicidality tracking scale (S-STS): Reliability, convergent and dis-

criminative validity in young Italian adults. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 54, 842–849. doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2013.03.012

Randall, J. R., Rowe, B. H., Dong, K. A., Nock, M. K., & Colman, I. (2013). Assessment

of self-harm risk using implicit thoughts. Psychological Assessment, 25, 714–721. doi:10.1037/a0032391

Rathore, J. S., Jehi, L. E., Fan, Y., Patel, S. I., Foldvary-Schaefer, N., Ramirez,

M. J., . . . Tesar, G. E. (2014). Validation of the patient health questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for depression screening in adults with epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior, 37, 215–220. doi:10.1016/j.yebah.2014.06.030

Razykov, I., Zieglestein, R. C., Whooley, M. A., & Thombs, B. D. (2012). The PHQ-9

versus the PHQ-8 – is item 9 useful for assessing suicide risk in coronary artery disease patients? Data from the heart and soul study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 73, 163–168. doi:10/1016/j.jpsychores.2012.06.001

Reynolds, W. M. (1991). Psychometric characteristics of the adult suicidal ideation ques- tionnaire in college students. Journal of Personality Assessment, 56, 289–307. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5602_9

Ribeiro, J. D., Witte, T. K., Van Orden, K. A., Selby, E. A., Gordon, K. H., Bender, T. W., . . . Joiner, T. E. (2014). Fearlessness about death: The psychometric properties and construct validity of the revision to the acquired capability for suicide scale. Psychological Assessment, 26, 115–126. doi:10.1037/a0034858

Rudd, M. D. (1989). The prevalence of suicidal ideation among college students. Suicide & Life-Threatening Behavior, 19, 173–183.

Scheinthal, S. M., Steer, R. A., Giffin, L. & Beck, A. T. (2001). Evaluating geriatric

medical outpatients with beck depression inventory-fast screen for medical patients. Aging & Mental Health, 5, 143–148. doi:10.1080/13607860120038320

Segal, D. L., Marty, M. A., Meyer, W. J., & Coolidge, F. L. (2012). Personality,

suicidal ideation, and reasons for living among older adults. Journal of Gerontology Psychological Society and Social Science, 67B, 159–166. doi:10.1093/ geronb/gbr080

Sheehan, D. V., Lecrubier, Y., Sheehan, K. H., Amorim, P., Janavas, J., Weiller, E., . . . Dunbar, G. C. (1998). The mini-international neuropsychiatric interview (M.I.N.I.): The development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 59, 22–33.

88 OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying 77(1)

Smith, P. N., Wolford, C., Mandracchia, J. T., & Jahn, D. R. (2013). An exploratory factor analysis of the acquired capability for suicide scale in male prison inmates.

Psychological Services, 10, 97–105. doi:10.1037/a0030817 Steer, R. A., Ball, R., Ranieri, W. F., & Beck, A. T. (1999). Dimensions of the beck

depression inventory-II in clinically depressed outpatients. Journal of Clinical

Psychology, 55, 117–128. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(199901) Steer, R. A., Cavalieri, T. A., Leonard, D. M., & Beck, A. T. (1999). Use of the Beck

depression inventory for primary care to screen for major depression disorders. General Hospital Psychiatry, 21, 106–111.

Teismann, T., Fortsch, E. M., Baumgart, P., Het, S., & Michalak, J. (2014). Influence of violent video gaming on determinants of the acquired capability for suicide. Psychiatry Research, 215, 217–222. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2013.10.021

Titov, N., Dear, B. F., McMillan, D., Anderson, T., Zou, J., & Sunderland, M. (2011). Psychometric comparison of the PHQ-9 and BDI-II for measuring response during treatment of depression. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, 40, 126–136. doi:10.1080/

16506073.2010.550059 Tzu-Chi, H., Hwa-Sheng, T., Chen-Huan, C., Ying-Yeh, C., Kuei-Ru, C., Hsien-Chich,

C., & Hsiu-Ju, C. (2010). Anxiety, depressive symptom and suicidal ideation of out-

patients with obsessive compulsive disorders in Taiwan. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19, 3092–3101. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03378.x

Uebelacker, L. A., German, N. M., Baudiano, B. A., & Miller, I. W. (2011). Patient health questionnaire depression scale as a suicide screening instrument in depressed

primary care patients: A cross-sectional study. The Primary Care Companion For CNS Disorders, 13, e1–e6. doi:10.4088/PCC.10m01027

Van Orden, K. A., Cukrowicz, K. C., Witte, T. K., & Joiner, T. E. (2012). Thwarted

belongingness and perceived burdensomeness: Construct validity and psychometric properties of the interpersonal needs questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 24, 197–215. doi:10.1037/a0025358

Van Orden, K. A., Witte, T. K., Gordon, K. H., Bender, T. W., & Joiner, T. E. (2008). Suicidal desire and the capability for suicide: Tests of the interpersonal-psychological theory of suicidal behavior among adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 72–83. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.76.1.72

Vuorilehto, M., Valtonen, H. M., Merlartin, T., Sokero, P., Suominen, K., & Isometsa, E. T. (2014). Method of assessment determines prevalence of suicidal ideation among patients with depression. European Psychiatry, 29, 338–344. doi:10.1016/

j.eurpsy.2013.08.005 Wagner, B., Klinitzke, G., Brahler, E., & Kersting, A. (2013). Extreme obesity is asso-

ciated with suicidal behavior and suicide attempts in adults: Results of a population-

based representative sample. Depression and Anxiety, 30, 975–981. doi:10.1002/ da.22105

Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). An integrative review: Updated methodology.

Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52, 546–553. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x Woods, A. M., Zimmerman, L., Carlin, E., Hill, A., & Kaslow, N. J. (2013).

Motherhood, reasons for living, and suicidality among African American women. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 600–606. doi:10.1037/a0033592

Kreuze and Lamis 89

World Health Organization. (2014). Preventing suicide: A global imperative. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/

131056/1/9789241564779_eng.pdf Xie, W., Li, H., Luo, X., Fu, R., Ying, X., Wang, N., . . . Shi, C. (2014). Anhedonia and

pain avoidance in the suicidal mind: Behavioral evidence for motivational manifest-

ations of suicidal ideation in patients with major depressive disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 70, 681–692. doi:10.1002/jclp.22055

Zhong, Q., Gelaye, B., Rondon, M., Sanchez, S. E., Garcia, P. J., Sanchez, E., . . . Williams, M. A. (2014). Comparative performance of patient health question-

naire-9 and Edinburgh postnatal depression scale for screening antepartum depres- sion. Journal of Affective Disorders, 162, 1–7. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2014.03.028

Zuithoff, N. P., Vergouwe, Y., King, M., Nazerth, I., van Wezep, M. J., Moons, K. G., &

Geerlings, M. I. (2010). The patient health questionnaire-9 for detection of major depressive disorder in primary care: Consequences of current thresholds in a cross- sectional study. BMC Family Practice, 11, 98. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-11-98.

Author Biographies

Elizabeth Kreuze, RN, is a PhD candidate in Nursing Science at the Medical University of South Carolina, College of Nursing. Her research focus includes mental health promotion and suicide prevention. As part of her dissertation research study, she is working collaboratively with her professors on a mixed methods analysis of a community suicide prevention project.

Dorian A. Lamis, PhD, is a licensed clinical psychologist and an assistant pro- fessor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Emory University School of Medicine. His research focuses on mood disorders, sub- stance use, and suicidal behaviors in a variety of populations. He has edited 2 books and published over 100 peer reviewed articles and book chapters on these topics. He also has a strong interest in clinical work, especially with patients who have been diagnosed with a serious mental illness and are at-risk for suicide and/ or other self-harm behaviors.

90 OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying 77(1)

http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/131056/1/9789241564779_eng.pdf

Copyright of Omega: Journal of Death & Dying is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.