CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 218Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesHomicide, Infanticide, and Child AbuseGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health

Critical Issues in Psychological Autopsy Studies

Pouliot, Louise, De Leo, Diego·2006·Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior
DOI 10.1521/suli.2006.36.5.491
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper reviews research based on the psychological autopsy (PA) method applied to the study of suicide. It evidences the presence of a number of methodological problems. Shortcomings concern sampling biases in the selection of control subjects, confounding influences of extraneous variables, and reliability of the assessment instruments. The absence of homogeneity among studies in the procedure employed, as well as the lack of defined guidelines for performing this type of inquiry are emphasized. Questions needing empirical investigation in the future are pointed out. It is concluded that the validity and reliability of findings emerging from the use of this method of investigation would benefit from a standardization of its application.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1521/suli.2006.36.5.491

Cites

167 of 167 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 psychological autopsy approach has limitations including issues relating to the choice (and selective non-response) of control subjects and the reliance on proxy reports, which are prone to recall bias and measurement error.

    “In addition, there are several limitations inherent to the psychological autopsy approach,23–25 including issues relating to the choice (and selective non-response) of control subjects and the reliance on proxy reports—the latter being prone to recall bias and measurement error.”

    From Risk factors for suicide in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological autopsy studies (2022) · cites this paper as [24]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Pouliot, L., & De Leo, D.
Affiliations
Université du Québec à Montréal (CA)
Venue
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-10
Volume
36
Issue
5
Pages
491-510
ISSN
  • 0363-0234 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-278X
DOI
10.1521/suli.2006.36.5.491
OpenAlex
W2004261778
Cited by
218
References
165
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 23
FWCI
1.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 1559 d)
Locations
  • Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Keywords
psychological autopsy, suicide, methodological issues, sampling bias, control subjects, confounding variables, assessment instrument reliability, standardization of procedures
MeSH terms
Autopsy, Forensic Psychiatry, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Research Design, Suicide, Time Factors, Bias, Control Groups

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