A Psychometric Assessment of the Suicidal Behaviors Questionnaire (SBQ-5) and Geriatric Suicide Ideation Scale-Screen (GSIS-screen) in Middle-Aged and Older Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. To investigate the psychometric properties of the five-item Suicidal Behaviors Questionnaire (SBQ-5) and the Geriatric Suicide Ideation Scale-Screen (GSIS-Screen, submitted) among community-residing middle-aged and older men.Methods. The SBQ-5 and GSIS-Screen were administered to 93 men, 55 years or older, who participated in an eligibility assessment (Time 1) for an upstream psychological intervention study to prevent the onset of suicide ideation among men struggling to transition to retirement. Eligible participants later completed the full GSIS and measures of depression and hopelessness at a pre-group assessment (Time 2).Results. The SBQ-5 was positively associated with the GSIS-Screen at the eligibility assessment. Internal consistency for both measures was low but acceptable. Time 1 scores on both screens predicted suicide ideation at Time 2, controlling for the intervening time lag and for baseline cognitive and physical functioning. Only the GSIS-Screen uniquely predicted future depression and hopelessness ratings.Conclusions. The SBQ-5 and the GSIS-Screen have acceptable psychometric properties among middle-aged and older community-residing men; the GSIS-Screen is more closely associated with later-life suicide risk factors.Clinical Implications. Brief screening tools may be of use in effectively identifying suicide ideation in community-residing middle-aged and older men.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".