Cited by 42Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesMental Health via WritingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Detecting suicide risk among college students: a test of the predictive validity of the modified Emotional Stroop Task

Chung, Yeunjoo, Jeglic, Elizabeth L.·2017·Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior

Abstract

Detecting suicide risk among nonclinical populations is challenging due to low base rates and the help‐negation tendency of at‐risk individuals. The current longitudinal study investigated the predictive validity of the modified emotional Stroop task (EST) by conducting a follow‐up study of 197 students who participated in a study by Chung and Jeglic (2016). The EST latencies for suicide‐related cues and past suicidal behaviors were the only significant predictors of suicide risk. The findings of this study provide preliminary support for the use of the EST as part of a suicide risk screening battery that could add to the detection of suicide risk.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/sltb.12287

Cites

32 of 32 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?

  • Attempts to replicate Suicide Stroop findings have been less consistent than results for the suicide-related IAT, and treatment effects and reactivity to mood have not been demonstrated.

    “However, attempts to replicate these findings have been less consistent than results for the suicide-related IAT (61, 62), and treatment effects and reactivity to mood have not been demonstrated (59).”

    From New methods for assessing rapid changes in suicide risk (2021) · cites this paper as [62]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chung, Y., & Jeglic, E. L.
Affiliations
  • The Graduate Center, CUNY (US)
  • City University of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Jeglic, Elizabeth L.
Venue
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-09-23
Volume
47
Issue
4
Pages
398-409
ISSN
  • 0363-0234 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-278X
OpenAlex
W2522493586
Cited by
42
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 1
FWCI
9.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
suicide risk, university students, predictive validity, suicide risk screening, non-clinical population
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Students, Suicide, Universities, Risk Assessment, Young Adult, Stroop Test, 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