Validation of the German capability for suicide questionnaire (GCSQ) in a high-risk sample of suicidal inpatients
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The German Capability for Suicide Questionnaire (GCSQ) was developed to measure fearlessness of death and pain tolerance - two constructs central to the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide. Initial scale development, definition of the factor structure and confirmation of the two-dimensional factor structure was performed in samples suffering from relatively low levels of suicide ideation/behavior. The present study aimed to validate the German Capability for Suicide Questionnaire (GCSQ) in a high-risk sample of suicidal inpatients. METHODS: Factor structure, reliability and validity were investigated in a sample of inpatients (N = 296; 53.0% female; age in years: M = 36.81, SD = 14.27) admitted to a hospital due to a recent suicide attempt or an acute suicidal crisis (in immediate need of inpatient treatment). To establish convergent validity, interview-based assessments of lifetime suicide attempts and non-suicidal self-injury as well as questionnaire-based assessments of painful and provocative events were used. Finally, stability of GCSQ-scores over a follow-up period of 12 months was assessed. RESULTS: Results indicated good psychometric properties, and provided additional evidence for construct validity and stability of the subscales over a one-year period, and demonstrated adequate fit of the data with respect to the original factor structure. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the GCSQ is a brief, reliable, and valid measure of capability for suicide that can be used in clinic assessment and research.
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?
Variability in momentary suicidal ideation correlated moderately with the SBQ-R (r = 0.41), the BSSI (r = 0.49), and the GCSQ (r = 0.30).
“Variability in momentary SI correlated moderately with the Suicide Behaviors Questionnaire - Revised [SBQ-R (96)] (r = 0.41), the BSSI (r = 0.49), and the Capability for Suicide Questionnaire [GCSQ (97)] (r = 0.30) (63).”
From Don't Miss the Moment: A Systematic Review of Ecological Momentary Assessment in Suicide Research (2022) · cites this paper as [97]
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 48 · Cited by 5
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [3]O’Connor R Towards an integrated motivational-volitional model of suicide behavior. In R O’Connor R, Platt S, Gordon J (Eds.), international handbook of suicide prevention: research policy and practice (pp. 181-198) 2011 Oxford Wiley
- [44]Huang X Ribeiro JD Franklin JC The difference between suicide ideators and suicide attempt: simple, complicated or complex? J Consult Clin Psychol 2020 88 554 569 32105092
- Authors
- Cwik, J. C., Forkmann, T., Glaesmer, H., Paashaus, L., Schönfelder, A., Rath, D., Prinz, S., Juckel, G., & Teismann, T.
- Affiliations
- University of Cologne (DE)
- University of Duisburg-Essen (DE)
- Leipzig University (DE)
- Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
- LWL-Universitätsklinikum Bochum (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Teismann, Tobias
- ORCID
- Venue
- BMC Psychiatry
- Published
- 2020-08-20
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 412-412
- ISSN
- 1471-244X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7439651
- OpenAlex
- W3069735791
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 0.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMC Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Kölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) (publishedVersion)
- Dokumentenrepositorium der RUB (Ruhr University Bochum) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften (ZB MED) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- DFG
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- pain tolerance, interpersonal theory of suicide, suicide attempts, non-suicidal self-injury, factor structure, psychometric validation, convergent validity, test-retest stability
- MeSH terms
- Female, Humans, Inpatients, Male, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, 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
