Cited by 361Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

Single-item measurement of suicidal behaviors: Validity and consequences of misclassification

Open access
Millner, Alexander J., Lee, Michael D., Nock, Matthew K.·2015·PLOS ONE

Abstract

Suicide is a leading cause of death worldwide. Although research has made strides in better defining suicidal behaviors, there has been less focus on accurate measurement. Currently, the widespread use of self-report, single-item questions to assess suicide ideation, plans and attempts may contribute to measurement problems and misclassification. We examined the validity of single-item measurement and the potential for statistical errors. Over 1,500 participants completed an online survey containing single-item questions regarding a history of suicidal behaviors, followed by questions with more precise language, multiple response options and narrative responses to examine the validity of single-item questions. We also conducted simulations to test whether common statistical tests are robust against the degree of misclassification produced by the use of single-items. We found that 11.3% of participants that endorsed a single-item suicide attempt measure engaged in behavior that would not meet the standard definition of a suicide attempt. Similarly, 8.8% of those who endorsed a single-item measure of suicide ideation endorsed thoughts that would not meet standard definitions of suicide ideation. Statistical simulations revealed that this level of misclassification substantially decreases statistical power and increases the likelihood of false conclusions from statistical tests. Providing a wider range of response options for each item reduced the misclassification rate by approximately half. Overall, the use of single-item, self-report questions to assess the presence of suicidal behaviors leads to misclassification, increasing the likelihood of statistical decision errors. Improving the measurement of suicidal behaviors is critical to increase understanding and prevention of suicide.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0141606

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Millner, A. J., Lee, M. D., & Nock, M. K.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Corresponding author
Millner, Alexander J.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2015-10-23
Volume
10
Issue
10
Pages
e0141606
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2169699730
Cited by
361
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 8
FWCI
26.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
  • Harvard University
  • Dr Mortimer and Theresa Sackler Foundation
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 › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
suicidal behavior, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, misclassification, measurement validity, statistical power, false positives, response options, suicide prevention
MeSH terms
Suicide Prevention, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Suicide, United States, Young Adult

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