Forecasting a fatal decision: Direct replication of the predictive validity of the Suicide–Implicit Association Test
Open accessAbstract
A previous study by Nock et al. (2010) suggested that people’s implicit identification with “death” or “suicide” can accurately predict whether they will attempt suicide several months in advance. We report the first direct and independent replication of this promising finding. Participants were 165 patients seeking treatment at a psychiatric unit in France. At baseline, patients completed the Suicide–Implicit Association Test (S–IAT), a semistructured interview, and a self-report measure of suicide ideation. Six months later, we contacted participants by phone and examined their hospital medical records to determine whether they had made a new suicide attempt. Results showed that the S–IAT did not distinguish between patients who were admitted to the hospital following suicide attempts and those who were admitted for other reasons. As in the original study, however, the S–IAT predicted suicide attempts within the 6-month follow-up period beyond well-known predictors. The test correctly classified 85% of patients (95% confidence interval = [76.91, 91.53]), supporting its diagnostic value for identifying who will make a suicide attempt.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
In some studies, the predictive power of the S/LD-IAT exceeded that of traditional measures.
“Nevertheless, in some studies, the predictive power of the S/LD-IAT exceeded that of traditional measures (Nock et al., 2010; Tello et al., 2020), suggesting it might be implemented alongside existing batteries in both research and clinical settings.”
From Toward objective characterizations of suicide risk: A narrative review of laboratory-based cognitive and behavioral tasks (2023) · cites this paper as Tello et al., 2020
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 40 · Cited by 54
- Authors
- Tello, N., Harika-Germaneau, G., Serra, W., Jaafari, N., & Chatard, A.
- Affiliations
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- Centre Hospitalier Henri Laborit, Unité de Recherche Clinique, Poitiers, France
- Centre Hospitalier Henri Laborit (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Chatard, Armand
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-12-11
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 65-74
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2995835788
- Cited by
- 54
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 5
- FWCI
- 6.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hal.science
- Locations
- Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
- Keywords
- suicide attempts, suicide risk prediction, predictive validity, replication, suicidal ideation, psychiatric inpatients, suicide risk assessment
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attitude to Death, Female, France, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Risk Factors, Suicide, Suicide, Attempted, Logistic Models, Risk Assessment, 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