CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 24Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesPsychiatric care and mental health servicesMental Health via Writing

Validity of the modular assessment of risk for imminent suicide in predicting short‐term suicidality

Rogers, Megan L., Vespa, Allison, Bloch‐Elkouby, Sarah, Galynker, Igor·2021·Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
DOI 10.1111/acps.13354
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective The Modular Assessment of Risk for Imminent Suicide (MARIS) is a clinical assessment tool, consisting of four modules assessing (1) a pre-suicidal cognitive-affective state (Module 1); (2) patients' attitudes toward suicide (Module 2); (3) clinicians' assessment of suicide risk factors (Module 3); and (4) clinicians' emotional responses to patients (Module 4) that assesses short-term suicide risk. Initial evidence provided evidence for its reliability and concurrent validity. The present study extended these findings by examining the MARIS's predictive validity in relation to suicidal thoughts and behaviors at one-month follow-up. Methods A sample of 1039 psychiatric patients (378 inpatients, 661 outpatients) and their clinicians (N = 144) completed a battery of measures at baseline; 670 patients completed the one-month follow-up assessment. Results MARIS total scores predicted suicidal thoughts and behaviors at one-month follow-up, even after controlling for baseline suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Moreover, both Module 1 and the Distress subscale of Module 4 were uniquely associated with suicidal thoughts and behaviors at one-month follow-up, controlling for baseline suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Modules 2 and 3, on the other hand, exhibited poor internal consistency. Conclusion Overall, both patient- and clinician-rated indices are uniquely predictive of suicidal thoughts and behaviors at one-month follow-up, highlighting the need for integrating clinicians'…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/acps.13354

Cites

10 of 10 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?

  • The internal consistency of the 8-item short-form version (SCI-SF) was good, with Cronbach's alpha = 0.87.

    “Finally, the internal consistency of the 8-item short-form version (SCI-SF) was shown to be good: Cronbach's α = 0.87 (Calati et al., 2020;Rogers, Vespa, et al., 2021).”

    From Suicide Crisis Syndrome: A systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as Rogers, Vespa, et al., 2021

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rogers, M. L., Vespa, A., Bloch‐Elkouby, S., & Galynker, I.
Affiliations
Mount Sinai Beth Israel (US)
Corresponding author
Rogers, Megan L.
ORCID
Venue
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-08-10
Volume
144
Issue
6
Pages
563-577
ISSN
  • 0001-690X (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0447
DOI
10.1111/acps.13354
OpenAlex
W3191911736
Cited by
24
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 4
FWCI
3.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica (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 › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
Keywords
suicide risk assessment, predictive validity, suicidal ideation, suicidal behavior, attitudes toward suicide, distress, psychiatric inpatients and outpatients
MeSH terms
Humans, Risk Factors, Suicide, Suicide, Attempted, Reproducibility of Results, Risk Assessment, 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