Cited by 112Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesDeath Anxiety and Social ExclusionHomicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse

Suicide risk in older adults: Evaluating models of risk and predicting excess zeros in a primary care sample.

Cukrowicz, Kelly C., Jahn, Danielle R., Graham, Ryan D., Poindexter, Erin K., Williams, Ryan B.·2013·Journal of Abnormal Psychology

Abstract

Research is needed that examines theory-based risk factors for suicide in older adults. The interpersonal theory of suicide (Joiner, 2005; Van Orden et al., 2010) provides specific hypotheses regarding variables that contribute to the development and variability in death ideation and suicide ideation; however, data suggest that older adults may not report suicide ideation in research settings or to treatment providers even when they experience it (Heisel et al., 2006). The purpose of this study was to test theory-based predictions regarding variables that contribute to death ideation (i.e., a passive wish to die) and suicide ideation in older adults. This study introduces the application of zero-inflated negative binomial regression (ZINB) to the study of suicidal behavior. ZINB was used to test theory-based predictions, while also testing a hypothesis regarding variables associated with denial of suicide ideation among participants who endorsed risk factors associated with suicide risk. Participants included 239 adults aged 60 and older recruited from primary care clinics who completed a variety of self-report instruments. The results of this study indicated that perceived burdensomeness and hopelessness were significantly associated with variability in death ideation. Additional results indicated that elevated scores on thwarted belonging, the interaction between perceived burdensomeness and hopelessness, and the interaction between thwarted belonging and perceived burdenso…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0034953

Cites

7 of 7 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cukrowicz, K. C., Jahn, D. R., Graham, R. D., Poindexter, E. K., & Williams, R. B.
Affiliations
Texas Tech University (US)
Venue
Journal of Abnormal Psychology
Published
2013-11
Volume
122
Issue
4
Pages
1021-1030
ISSN
  • 0021-843X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1846
OpenAlex
W2087816661
Cited by
112
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 3
FWCI
11.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Abnormal Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
American Foundation for Suicide Prevention
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
Keywords
suicide risk, older adults, suicidal ideation, death ideation, interpersonal theory of suicide, perceived burdensomeness, hopelessness, zero-inflated negative binomial regression, excess zeros, primary care
MeSH terms
Aged, Attitude to Death, Depressive Disorder, Female, Geriatric Psychiatry, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Primary Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Regression Analysis, Risk Factors, Suicide, Binomial Distribution, 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