A national survey of doctoral psychology education and training in suicide risk and violence risk assessment and management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: When, in the judgment of a mental health professional, patient suicide risk and/or patient violence risk are considered imminent, they have been referred to as behavioral emergencies. Past surveys have suggested that education and training with these emergency situations have been inadequate. The present study was undertaken to obtain more current information on the training that psychologists receive in these areas of practice. METHOD: All directors of APA-accredited graduate psychology programs and all directors of APA-accredited predoctoral psychology internship programs were asked to complete an online survey inquiring about such training provided in their programs. RESULTS: Results indicated that both sets of directors rated such doctoral training in suicide risk assessment and management as very important. Internship directors, however, were significantly more likely than graduate program directors to state that psychologists should be required to complete continuing education courses on other-directed violence risk. Serious gaps in training were identified; that is, only 59.2% of psychology graduate directors reported that their program offered training in safety planning for suicide risk and only 25.4% reported that their program offered training in safety planning for violence risk. CONCLUSION: Given that serious injury and even death can occur from patient suicidal behavior and/or a patient violent behavior, the implications of these findings are discussed.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".