Multi-informant prediction of near-term suicidal behavior independent of suicidal ideation
Abstract
Background Both the Suicide Crisis Syndrome (SCS) and clinicians' emotional responses to suicidal patients are predictive of near-term suicidal behaviors. Thus, we tested predictive validity of a combination of the proposed Diagnostic and Statistical Manual SCS criteria and the Therapist Response Questionnaire Suicide Form (TRQ-SF) for near-term suicidal behavior. Methods The presence of SCS in adult psychiatric outpatients (N=451) was assessed using relevant items from validated psychometric assessments. Clinicians completed the TRQ-SF immediately after patient intake. Suicide attempts (SA) and a combination of suicide plans and attempts (SPA) were measured at one month follow-up (N=359). Results At follow-up nine patients reported having SPA and seven reported SA. Meeting the SCS criteria were associated with near-term SA (χ2=5.987, p Conclusions Multi-informant risk assessment not reliant on patient self-reported ideation appear to enhance predictive power of traditional risk assessments in identifying imminent suicide risk.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
In Ying et al. (2020), 3 (7%) out of 45 who met SCS criteria attempted suicide at a 1-month follow-up assessment.
“Finally, in a study by Ying et al. (2020), 3 (7%) out of 45 who met SCS criteria attempted suicide at a 1-month follow-up assessment.”
From Suicide Crisis Syndrome: A systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as Ying et al., 2020
Ying et al. (2020) reported that meeting SCS criteria was associated with near-term suicide attempts (chi-square = 5.987, p < 0.01), predictive validity for suicide attempts with 43% sensitivity and 88% specificity, and that the combination had incremental predictive validity for suicide attempts over traditional risk factors.
“Meeting SCS criteria were associated with nearterm SA (χ 2 = 5.987, p < 0.01); predictive validity for SA with 43% sensitivity and 88% specificity; combination had incremental predictive validity for SA over traditional risk factors”
From Suicide Crisis Syndrome: A systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as Ying et al., 2020
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 41 · Cited by 25
- Authors
- Ying, G., Cohen, L. J., Lloveras, L., Barzilay, S., & Galynker, I.
- Affiliations
- Mount Sinai Beth Israel (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ying, Gelan
- Venue
- Psychiatry Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-09
- Volume
- 291
- Pages
- 113169
- ISSN
- 0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3033671753
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4
- FWCI
- 1.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
- Keywords
- suicide crisis syndrome, suicide attempts, suicide planning, suicide risk assessment, multi-informant assessment, suicidal ideation, psychiatric outpatients
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Forecasting, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Outpatient Clinics, Hospital, Prospective Studies, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Risk Factors, Suicide, Attempted, Risk Assessment, Self Report, Suicidal Ideation
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
