Who are we missing? Nondisclosure in online suicide risk screening questionnaires.
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
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?
Individuals may be more willing to report feelings of social isolation or perception of being a burden than suicidal ideation.
“individuals may be more willing to report their feelings of social isolation or perception of being a burden than suicidal ideation”
From The interpersonal theory of suicide: A systematic review and meta-analysis of a decade of cross-national research. (2017) · cites this paper as Podlogar et al., 2015
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Twenge, J. M., Joiner, T. E., Rogers, M. L., & Martin, G. N. (2018) · Clinical Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2167702617723376 · Cited by 1,705 · see citing works
Self-citationChu, C., Buchman-Schmitt, J. M., Stanley, I. H., Hom, M. A., Tucker, R. P., Hagan, C. R., Rogers, M. L., Podlogar, M. C., Chiurliza, B., Ringer, F. B., et al. (2017) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000123 · Cited by 1,231 · see citing works
Self-citationNock, M. K., Millner, A. J., Joiner, T. E., Gutierrez, P. M., Han, G., Hwang, I., King, A., Naifeh, J. A., Sampson, N. A., Zaslavsky, A. M., et al. (2018) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/abn0000317 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Self-citationDisclosure of suicidal ideation and behaviours: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence
Hallford, D. J., Rusanov, D., Winestone, B., Kaplan, R., Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M., & Melvin, G. (2023) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102272 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
The role of suicide ideation in assessing near-term suicide risk: A machine learning approach
McMullen, L., Parghi, N., Rogers, M. L., Yao, H., Bloch-Elkouby, S., & Galynker, I. (2021) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2021.114118 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Self-citation
- 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