Enhanced measurement sensitivity of hopeless ideation among older adults at risk of self-harm: Reliability and validity of Likert-type responses to the Beck Hopelessness Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Responses to the Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) have been identified as a significant predictor of suicide-related ideation and self-harm, of note, to a greater degree than severity of depressive symptoms. The BHS is the most widely used instrument to assess this construct, yet concern has been expressed about the traditional true/false response format of this instrument. For this study, we obtained responses from older adults to a revised four-point Likert-type BHS response format. METHOD: A national sample of 117 older Canadians at risk of self-harm was recruited from multiple sources for this study over a one-year period. Most participants were women (65%) with an average age of 68.47 years (SD = 9.02, range 50-92). RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis suggests the existence of two factors labeled Powerlessness/Disappointment and Negative Future Expectancies. Concurrent validity of this two-factor model of BHS responses is provided vis-a-vis suicide-related ideation subsequent to statistical control for socio-demographic factors, physical health, and depressive symptomatology. Of note, the relative contribution to the measurement of BHS factors is proportionately equal and greater than all other independent variables. CONCLUSION: We contend that this revised BHS response format may be appropriate for use in clinical and research applications though replication with other samples and populations is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".