Concurrent validity and reliability of suicide risk assessment instruments: A meta analysis of 20 instruments across 27 international cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective A major limitation of current suicide research is the lack of power to identify robust correlates of suicidal thoughts or behaviour. Variation in suicide risk assessment instruments used across cohorts may represent a limitation to pooling data in international consortia. Method Here, we examine this issue through two approaches: (i) an extensive literature search on the reliability and concurrent validity of the most commonly used instruments; and (ii) by pooling data (N∼6,000 participants) from cohorts from the ENIGMA-Major Depressive Disorder (ENIGMA-MDD) and ENIGMA-Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviour (ENIGMA-STB) working groups, to assess the concurrent validity of instruments currently used for assessing suicidal thoughts or behaviour. Results Our results suggested a pattern of moderate-to-high correlations between instruments, consistent with the wide range of correlations, r=0.22-0.97, reported in the literature. Two common complex instruments, the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) and the Beck Scale for Suicidal Ideation (SSI), were highly correlated with each other (r=0.83), as were suicidal ideation items from common depression severity questionnaires. Conclusions Our findings suggest that multi-item instruments provide valuable information on different aspects of suicidal thoughts or behaviour, but share a core factor with single suicidal ideation items found in depression severity questionnaires. Multi-site collaborations including cohorts that used distinct instruments for suicide risk assessment should be feasible provided that they harmonise across instruments or focus on specific constructs of suicidal thoughts or behaviours. Key points Question: To inform future suicide research in multi-site international consortia, it is important to examine how different suicide measures relate to each other and whether they can be used interchangeably. Findings: Findings suggest detailed instruments (such as the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale and Beck Scale for Suicidal Ideation) provide valuable information on suicidal thoughts and behaviour, and share a core factor with items on suicidal ideation from depression severity rating scale (such as the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale or the Beck Depression Inventory). Importance: Results from international collaborations can mitigate biases by harmonising distinct suicide risk assessment instruments. Next steps: Pooling data within international suicide research consortia may reveal novel clinical, biological and cognitive correlates of suicidal thoughts and/or behaviour.
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 | 0.096 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".