Cited by 44Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesSurvey Methodology and NonresponsePsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Who are we missing? Nondisclosure in online suicide risk screening questionnaires.

Podlogar, Matthew C., Rogers, Megan L., Chiurliza, Bruno, Hom, Melanie A., Tzoneva, Mirela, Joiner, Thomas·2016·Psychological Assessment

Abstract

The use of self-report surveys for suicide risk screening is a key first step in identifying currently suicidal individuals and connecting them with appropriate follow-up assessment and care. Online methods for suicide risk screening are becoming more common, yet they present a number of complexities compared with traditional methods. This study aimed to assess whether forcing item responses may unintentionally hide or misrepresent otherwise useful missing suicide risk data. We investigated in secondary analyses of 3 independent samples of undergraduates (ns = 1,306; 694; 172) whether participants who chose not to respond specifically to current suicide risk screening items (i.e., Nondisclosers) scored significantly different from other risk response groups (i.e., Deniers, Lower-Risk Endorsers, and Higher-Risk Endorsers) on auxiliary measures related to suicidality. Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) tests for each sample revealed that Nondisclosers were rare (ns = 7, 6, 7) and scored significantly higher than Deniers and similarly to Endorsers on suicide risk related measures. In 1 sample, Nondisclosers tended to score higher than all groups on suicide risk related measures. These findings suggest that nondisclosure for suicide risk screening questions is a preferred option for a distinct group of respondents who are likely at elevated suicide risk. Allowing for and flagging Nondisclosers for follow-up suicide risk assessment may be an ethical and feasible way to enhance the sensitivity of online suicide risk screenings for weary respondents, who if forced, may choose to underreport their suicide risk and misrepresent data. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/pas0000242

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Podlogar, M. C., Rogers, M. L., Chiurliza, B., Hom, M. A., Tzoneva, M., & Joiner, T.
Affiliations
Florida State University (US)
Venue
Psychological Assessment
Published
2016-08
Volume
28
Issue
8
Pages
963-974
ISSN
  • 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-134X
OpenAlex
W2293450897
Cited by
44
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
FWCI
2.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Military Suicide Research Consortium (W81XWH-10-2-0181)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
suicide risk screening, non-disclosure, missing data, underreporting, self-report questionnaire, undergraduate students, suicidality, screening sensitivity, follow-up evaluation
MeSH terms
Suicide Prevention, Adolescent, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Disclosure, Students, Risk Assessment, Internet, Young Adult, 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