4.5 Article

The Columbia SuicideScreen: Validity and reliability of a screen for youth suicide and depression

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1097/00004583-200401000-00016

Keywords

suicide; depression; adolescents; identification; psychometrics

Funding

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [P30 MH 43878] Funding Source: Medline
  2. OHS HRSA HHS [ST32 MH 16434] Funding Source: Medline
  3. ODCDC CDC HHS [R49 CCR 202598] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [P30MH043878] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: This study reports on the psychometric properties of a brief, self-administered screening questionnaire, the Columbia SuicideScreen(R) (CSS), intended to identify high school students at risk for suicide. Method: Seventeen hundred twenty-nine 9th- to 12th-grade students completed the CSS and Beck Depression Inventory during school hours in 1991 to 1994. Three hundred fifty-six students who screened positively and 285, group matched on age, gender, and ethnicity, who screened negatively were examined on the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC), version 2.3, to assess validity. The DISC-based suicide risk criterion was suicidal ideation or prior suicide attempt and a DSM-III-R diagnosis of major depression or dysthymia or substance use. Test-retest reliability was assessed in a subsample of 85. Results: The most balanced algorithm had a sensitivity of 0.75, specificity 0.83, and positive predictive value 16%. Suicidal ideation and prior attempt item reliabilities (kappa) were 0.48 and 0.58, respectively. Eight-day test-retest reliability for the most balanced scoring algorithm was 0.32. Conclusions: The CSS demonstrated good sensitivity and reasonable specificity identifying students at risk for suicide. A second-stage evaluation would be needed to reduce the burden of low specificity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available