Two studies are reported that discuss the validation of an adult suicide prediction questionnaire for use with adolescents. The Reasons for Living Inventory (RFL; Linehan, Goodstein, Nielsen, & Chiles, 1983) was slightly modified and administered to two samples of adolescents: one from a general high school population and one from a population of juvenile delinquents receiving psychological treatment in a correctional facility. As with adults, adolescents who reported more reasons for staying alive were less apt to report past or recent suicidal thoughts or behaviors. Evidence of convergent validity emerged via correlations of RFL subscales with depression, hopelessness, and other suicide inventories. Evidence of discriminant validity emerged in that correlations with social desirability were not large. Evidence of construct validity emerged in that the RFL subscales related to suicidal thoughts and behaviors over and above depression and hopelessness. Differences between general and delinquent adolescents' reasons for living are discussed.
"Studies investigating the psychometric properties of the RFL inventory have been conducted in different populations. Cole  reported initial normative data using a modified version of the RFL on 285 high school and 79 delinquent adolescents. Osman et al.  reported the internal consistency for the RFL, which was satisfactory based on a sample of 110 undergraduates. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The Reasons For Living Inventory has been shown to have good psychometric properties in Western populations for the past three decades. The present study examined the psychometric properties and factor structure of English and Malay version of the Reasons For Living (RFL) Inventory in a sample of clinical outpatients in Malaysia. The RFL is designed to assess an individual's various reasons for not committing suicide. A total of 483 participants (283 with psychiatric illnesses and 200 with non-psychiatric medical illnesses) completed the RFL and other self-report instruments. Results of the EFA (exploratory factor analysis) and CFA (confirmatory factor analysis) supported the fit for the six-factor oblique model as the best-fitting model. The internal consistency of the RFL was α=.94 and it was found to be high with good concurrent, criterion and discriminative validities. Thus, the RFL is a reliable and valid instrument to measure the various reasons for not committing suicide among psychiatry and medical outpatients in Malaysia.
"The final eight studies did not provide enough information to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of the instruments (Archer, 1989; Cole, 1989; Esposito & Clum, 1999; Kempton & Forehand, 1992; Ivanoff & Jang, 1991, 1994; Ivanoff, Smyth, Grochowski, & Jang, 1992; Phillips & Dahlstrom, 1997). "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This systematic review assessed the validity of screening instruments to identify the risk of suicide and self-harm behaviour in offenders. A search of 11 electronic databases and grey literature resulted in the inclusion of five studies. The five studies revealed four screening instruments, including the Suicide Checklist, the Suicide Probability Scale, Suicide Concerns for Offenders in Prison Environment (SCOPE), and the Suicide Potential Scale. Two instruments, SCOPE and Suicide Potential Scale, shared promising levels of sensitivity and specificity. The reporting of information was generally varied across items on the Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD). Research is needed to assess the predictive validity of tools for offender populations in the identification of those at risk, particularly those in probation and community settings.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 03/2010; 54(5):803-28. DOI:10.1177/0306624X09359757 · 0.84 Impact Factor
"That is, they rated reasons for living as less important than individuals with no suicidal history. More recent research ( Cole, 1989 ; Gutierrez et al., 2002 ; Osman et al., 1993 , 1998 ) has offered further support for the assessment of reasons for living in diverse populations (e.g., psychiatric inpatients, college students, delinquent adolescents). As one might expect, reasons for living are different for different age groups ( Koven, Edelstein, & Charlton, 2001 ). "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The purposes of these studies were to develop and initially evaluate the psychometric properties of the Reasons for Living Scale-Older Adult version (RFL-OA), an older adults version of a measure designed to assess reasons for living among individuals at risk for suicide.
Two studies are reported. Study 1 involved instrument development with 106 community-dwelling older adults, and initial psychometric evaluation with a second sample of 119 community-dwelling older adults. Study 2 evaluated the psychometric properties of the RFL-OA in a clinical sample. One hundred eighty-one mental health patients 50 years or older completed the RFL-OA and measures of depression, suicide ideation at the current time and at the worst point in one's life, and current mental status and physical functioning.
Strong psychometric properties were demonstrated for the RFL-OA, with high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficient). Convergent validity was evidenced by negative associations among RFL-OA scores and measures of depression and suicide ideation. RFL-OA scores predicted current and worst-episode suicide ideation above and beyond current depression. Discriminant validity was evidenced with measures of current mental status and physical functioning. Criterion-related validity was also demonstrated with respect to lifetime history of suicidal behavior.
These findings provide preliminary support for the validity and reliability of the RFL-OA. The findings also support the potential value of attending to reasons for living during clinical treatment with depressed older adults and others at risk for suicide.
The Gerontologist 07/2009; 49(6):736-45. DOI:10.1093/geront/gnp052 · 3.21 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.