CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 96Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesMental Health Treatment and AccessGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health

Stigma of Suicide Attempt (STOSA) scale and Stigma of Suicide and Suicide Survivor (STOSASS) scale: Two new assessment tools

Scocco, Paolo, Castriotta, Cristina, Toffol, Elena, Preti, Antonio·2012·Psychiatry Research
DOI 10.1016/j.psychres.2012.06.033
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study aimed at validating two new assessment tools, the Stigma of Suicide Attempt (STOSA) scale and the Stigma of Suicide and Suicide Survivor (STOSASS) scale. The Devaluation-Discrimination scale of Link et al. was translated into Italian and adapted to measure stigma towards suicidal behavior. Both scales were administered to a mixed sample including members of the general population (n=282), patients with a mental disorder (n=113), suicide attempters (n=57) and people who had lost a significant other to suicide (n=75). Reliability of the scales was good in terms of both internal coherence and test-retest stability. Factor analysis produced an acceptable solution for the STOSA-scale. Items were distributed into two factors, one grouping items to measure supportive, respectful and caring attitudes, the other factor grouping items oriented towards stigmatizing attitudes and beliefs. The clinical populations were more inclined towards stigmatization of suicide than were people from the general population, who might be less aware of the stigma attached to suicide. The two scales may be helpful to quantify stigma at individual level in order to provide targeted supportive interventions, and at population level to measure changes in the beliefs and attitudes of the general population.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psychres.2012.06.033

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Seven studies examined associations of stigma with grief difficulties and sociodemographic variables.

    “Seven studies examined the associations of stigma with grief difficulties and sociodemographic variables [1,15,35–37,43,44].”

    From The Stigma of Suicide Survivorship and Related Consequences—A Systematic Review (2016) · cites this paper as [1]

  • Female participants were at a higher risk of experiencing stigma.

    “Female participants were at a higher risk of experiencing stigma [1,35,37].”

    From The Stigma of Suicide Survivorship and Related Consequences—A Systematic Review (2016) · cites this paper as [1]

  • In Scocco et al., stigma scores did not differ between the general population, psychiatric patients, and suicide survivors.

    “Analysis of responses revealed that stigma scores did not differ between the groups, with participants generally expressing moderately negative attitudes towards suicide survivors.”

    From The Stigma of Suicide Survivorship and Related Consequences—A Systematic Review (2016) · cites this paper as [1]

  • In Scocco et al., participants generally expressed moderately negative attitudes towards suicide survivors.

    “Analysis of responses revealed that stigma scores did not differ between the groups, with participants generally expressing moderately negative attitudes towards suicide survivors.”

    From The Stigma of Suicide Survivorship and Related Consequences—A Systematic Review (2016) · cites this paper as [1]

  • Only one study met inclusion criteria with results indicating that stigmatizing attitudes are indeed common among the general population.

    “Only one study met inclusion criteria with results indicating that stigmatizing attitudes are indeed common among the general population.”

    From The Stigma of Suicide Survivorship and Related Consequences—A Systematic Review (2016) · cites this paper as [1]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Scocco, P., Castriotta, C., Toffol, E., & Preti, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Padua (IT)
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
  • University of Cagliari (IT)
Corresponding author
Scocco, Paolo
ORCID
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-12
Volume
200
Issue
2-3
Pages
872-878
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.psychres.2012.06.033
OpenAlex
W2117773283
Cited by
96
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4
FWCI
6.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UNICA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (University of Cagliari) (submittedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion)
  • STM:n Hallinnonalan avoin julkaisuarkisto (Julkari) (submittedVersion)
  • WOS
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Keywords
suicide stigma, suicide survivors, stigma measurement, scale validation, Italian translation, mental illness, attitudes toward suicide, test-retest reliability, factor structure
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Stereotyping, Suicide, Attempted, Reproducibility of Results, Survivors, Social Stigma

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review