Reliability of Suicide Risk Estimates: A Vignette Study.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY Archives of Suicide Research Pub Date : 2024-07-24 DOI:10.1080/13811118.2024.2382709
Finn Dario Kolochowski, Nina Kreckeler, Thomas Forkmann, Tobias Teismann
{"title":"Reliability of Suicide Risk Estimates: A Vignette Study.","authors":"Finn Dario Kolochowski, Nina Kreckeler, Thomas Forkmann, Tobias Teismann","doi":"10.1080/13811118.2024.2382709","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Suicide risk assessments are obligatory when patients express a death wish in clinical practice. Yet, suicide risk estimates based on unguided risk assessments have been shown to be of low reliability. Since generalizability of previous studies is limited, the current study aimed to assess inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of risk estimates conducted by psychotherapists and psychology students using written case vignettes.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In total, <i>N</i> = 256 participants (psychology students, psychotherapists) were presented with 24 case vignettes describing patients at either low, moderate, severe or extreme risk of suicide. Participants were asked to assign a level of risk to each single vignette at a baseline assessment and again at a follow-up assessment two weeks later.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Risk estimates showed a low inter-rater reliability, both for students (AC<sub>1</sub> = .35) and for psychotherapists (AC<sub>1</sub> = .44). Intra-rater reliability was moderate for psychotherapists (AC<sub>1</sub> = .59) and rather low for psychology students (AC<sub>1</sub> = .47). In general, intra- and intra-rater reliability were highest for vignettes displaying \"low\" and \"extreme\" risk.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results highlight that the reliability of unguided suicide risk assessments is questionable. Standardized risk assessment protocols are therefore recommended. Nonetheless, even reliable risk estimation does not imply predictive validity of risk estimates for future suicidal behavior.</p>","PeriodicalId":8325,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Suicide Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Suicide Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2024.2382709","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Suicide risk assessments are obligatory when patients express a death wish in clinical practice. Yet, suicide risk estimates based on unguided risk assessments have been shown to be of low reliability. Since generalizability of previous studies is limited, the current study aimed to assess inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of risk estimates conducted by psychotherapists and psychology students using written case vignettes.

Method: In total, N = 256 participants (psychology students, psychotherapists) were presented with 24 case vignettes describing patients at either low, moderate, severe or extreme risk of suicide. Participants were asked to assign a level of risk to each single vignette at a baseline assessment and again at a follow-up assessment two weeks later.

Results: Risk estimates showed a low inter-rater reliability, both for students (AC1 = .35) and for psychotherapists (AC1 = .44). Intra-rater reliability was moderate for psychotherapists (AC1 = .59) and rather low for psychology students (AC1 = .47). In general, intra- and intra-rater reliability were highest for vignettes displaying "low" and "extreme" risk.

Conclusions: The results highlight that the reliability of unguided suicide risk assessments is questionable. Standardized risk assessment protocols are therefore recommended. Nonetheless, even reliable risk estimation does not imply predictive validity of risk estimates for future suicidal behavior.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
自杀风险估计的可靠性:小故事研究
目的:在临床实践中,当患者表达死亡意愿时,必须进行自杀风险评估。然而,根据无指导风险评估得出的自杀风险估计值已被证明可靠性较低。由于以往研究的推广性有限,本研究旨在利用书面案例小故事评估心理治疗师和心理学专业学生进行的风险估计的评分者之间和评分者内部的可靠性:方法:共向 N = 256 名参与者(心理学学生、心理治疗师)展示了 24 个案例,分别描述了自杀风险较低、中等、严重或极端的患者。参与者被要求在基线评估和两周后的随访评估中为每个小故事指定一个风险等级:学生(AC1 = .35)和心理治疗师(AC1 = .44)的风险估计值显示出较低的评分者间可靠性。心理治疗师的评分者内部信度为中等(AC1 = .59),心理学专业学生的评分者内部信度较低(AC1 = .47)。总的来说,在显示 "低度 "和 "极度 "风险的小节中,评分者内部和评分者内部的信度最高:研究结果表明,无指导的自杀风险评估的可靠性值得怀疑。因此,建议采用标准化的风险评估方案。然而,即使是可靠的风险估计也并不意味着风险估计对未来自杀行为的预测有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
69
期刊介绍: Archives of Suicide Research, the official journal of the International Academy of Suicide Research (IASR), is the international journal in the field of suicidology. The journal features original, refereed contributions on the study of suicide, suicidal behavior, its causes and effects, and techniques for prevention. The journal incorporates research-based and theoretical articles contributed by a diverse range of authors interested in investigating the biological, pharmacological, psychiatric, psychological, and sociological aspects of suicide.
期刊最新文献
Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Mediate the Relationship Between Poor Sleep Quality and Suicidal Ideation Among Young Chinese Men. Correction. Perinatal Factors and Their Association with Early-Adulthood Suicidal Behavior in a Brazilian Birth Cohort. Within-Person Relationship between Attenuated Positive Symptoms and Suicidal Ideation among Individuals at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis. The Link between Deployment-Related Injuries and Suicidal Thinking in the Army National Guard: Examining the Role of Perceived Burdensomeness and Hopelessness.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1