0 Datasets
0 Files
Get instant academic access to this publication’s datasets.
Yes. After verification, you can browse and download datasets at no cost. Some premium assets may require author approval.
Files are stored on encrypted storage. Access is restricted to verified users and all downloads are logged.
Yes, message the author after sign-up to request supplementary files or replication code.
Join 50,000+ researchers worldwide. Get instant access to peer-reviewed datasets, advanced analytics, and global collaboration tools.
✓ Immediate verification • ✓ Free institutional access • ✓ Global collaborationJoin our academic network to download verified datasets and collaborate with researchers worldwide.
Get Free AccessAbstract 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.
Adrián I. Campos, Laura S. van Velzen, Dick J. Veltman, Elena Pozzi, Sonia Ambrogi, Elizabeth D. Ballard, Nerisa Banaj, Zeynep Başgöze, Sophie Bellow, Francesco Benedetti, Irene Bollettini, Katharina Brosch, Erick J. Canales‐Rodríguez, Emily K. Clarke‐Rubright, Lejla Čolić, Colm G. Connolly, Philippe Courtet, Kathryn R. Cullen, Udo Dannlowski, Maria R. Dauvermann, Christopher G. Davey, Jérémy Deverdun, Katharina Dohm, Tracy Erwin-Grabner, Negar Fani, Lydia Fortea, Paola Fuentes‐Claramonte, Ali Saffet Gönül, Ian H. Gotlib, Dominik Grotegerd, Mathew A. Harris, Ben J. Harrison, Courtney C. Haswell, Emma L. Hawkins, Dawson Hill, Yoshiyuki Hirano, Tiffany C. Ho, Fabrice Jollant, Tanja Jovanović, Tilo Kircher, Bonnie Klimes‐Dougan, Emmanuelle Le Bars, Christine Löchner, Andrew M. McIntosh, Susanne Meinert, Yara Mekawi, Elisa Melloni, Philip B. Mitchell, Rajendra A. Morey, Akiko Nakagawa, Igor Nenadić, Émilie Olié, Fabrício Pereira, Rachel Phillips, Fabrizio Piras, Sara Poletti, Edith Pomarol‐Clotet, Joaquim Raduà, Kerry J. Ressler, Gloria Roberts, Elena Rodríguez‐Cano, Matthew D. Sacchet, Raymond Salvador, Anca‐Larisa Sandu, Eiji Shimizu, Aditya Singh, Gianfranco Spalletta, J. Douglas Steele, Dan Joseph Stein, Frederike Stein, Jennifer S. Stevens, Giana I. Teresi, Aslihan Uyar-Demir, Nic J. van der Wee, Steven J. van der Werff, Sanne J.H. van Rooij, Daniela Vecchio, Norma Verdolini, Eduard Vieta, Gordon D. Waiter, Heather C. Whalley, Sarah Whittle, Tony T. Yang, Carlos Alfonso Tovilla‐Zárate, Paul M. Thompson, Neda Jahanshad, Anne‐Laura van Harmelen, Hilary P. Blumberg, Lianne Schmaal, Miguel E. Rentería (2021). Concurrent validity and reliability of suicide risk assessment instruments: A meta analysis of 20 instruments across 27 international cohorts. , DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.15.21263562.
Datasets shared by verified academics with rich metadata and previews.
Authors choose access levels; downloads are logged for transparency.
Students and faculty get instant access after verification.
Type
Preprint
Year
2021
Authors
90
Datasets
0
Total Files
0
Language
en
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.15.21263562
Access datasets from 50,000+ researchers worldwide with institutional verification.
Get Free Access