Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Assessing for Suicidal Behavior in Youth Using ...

Electronic data

  • CBCL_suicide_07142017_no_EN

    Rights statement: The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00787-017-1030-y

    Accepted author manuscript, 236 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Assessing for Suicidal Behavior in Youth Using the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published
Close
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>02/2018
<mark>Journal</mark>European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Issue number2
Volume27
Number of pages11
Pages (from-to)159-169
Publication statusPublished
Early online date26/07/17
Original languageEnglish

Abstract

Objective: This study investigated the clinical utility of the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA) for identifying youth at risk for suicide. Specifically, we investigated how well the Total Problems scores and the sum of two suicide-related items (#18 “Deliberately harms self or attempts suicide” and #91 “Talks about killing self”) were able to distinguish youth with a history of suicidal behavior. Method: Youth (N=1117) aged 5 to 18 were recruited for two studies of mental illness. History of suicidal behavior was assessed by semi-structured interviews (KSADS) with youth and caregivers. Youth, caregivers, and a primary teacher each completed the appropriate form (YSR, CBCL, TRF, respectively) of the ASEBA. Areas under the curve (AUCs) from ROC analyses and diagnostic likelihood ratios (DLRs) were used to measure the ability of both Total Problems T-scores, as well as the summed score of two suicide-related items, to identify youth with a history of suicidal behavior. Results: The Suicide Items from the CBCL and YSR performed well (AUCs=.85 and .70, respectively). The TRF Suicide Items did not perform better than chance, AUC=.45. The AUCs for the Total Problems scores were poor-to-fair (.33-.65). The CBCL Suicide Items outperformed all other scores (ps=.04 to <.0005). Combining the CBCL and YSR items did not lead to incremental improvement in prediction over the CBCL alone. Conclusion: The sum of two questions from a commonly used assessment tool can offer important information about a youth’s risk for suicidal behavior The low burden of this approach could facilitate wide-spread screening for suicide in an increasingly at-risk population.

Bibliographic note

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00787-017-1030-y