The relationship between suicide attempts and low-lethal self-harm behavior among psychiatric inpatients.

Wright State University School of Medicine, Dayton, OH, USA.
Journal of Psychiatric Practice (Impact Factor: 1.35). 06/2006; 12(3):148-52. DOI: 10.1097/00131746-200605000-00003
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In this study, we examined the relationship between suicide attempts and low-lethal self-harm behavior in a sample of psychiatric inpatients. Using a cross-sectional approach, we surveyed 107 participants about their histories of suicide attempts, including overdoses, as well as various low-lethal self-harm behaviors. Compared with those without such histories, individuals with histories of suicide attempts, including overdoses, were significantly more likely to report a greater number of: 1) low-lethal self-harm behaviors; 2) specific symptom clusters of self-harm behavior (i.e., self-mutilation, substance abuse, medically self-defeating behaviors); and 3) specific individual self-harm behaviors (e.g., torturing oneself with self-defeating thoughts, abusing prescription medications). These data suggest that suicide attempts and low-lethal self-harm behavior are likely to co-exist in many psychiatric inpatients.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to investigate the application of item banking to questionnaire items intended to measure Deliberate Self-Harm (DSH) behaviours. The Rasch measurement model was used to evaluate behavioural items extracted from seven published DSH scales administered to 568 Australians aged 18-30 years (62% university students, 21% mental health patients, and 17% community members). Ninety four items were calibrated in the item bank (including 12 items with differential item functioning for gender and age). Tailored scale construction was demonstrated by extracting scales covering different combinations of DSH methods but with the same raw score for each person location on the latent DSH construct. A simulated computer adaptive test (starting with common self-harm methods to minimise presentation of extreme behaviours) demonstrated that 11 items (on average) were needed to achieve a standard error of measurement of 0.387 (corresponding to a Cronbach׳s Alpha of 0.85). This study lays the groundwork for advancing DSH measurement to an item bank approach with the flexibility to measure a specific definitional orientation (e.g., non-suicidal self-injury) or a broad continuum of self-harmful acts, as appropriate to a particular research/clinical purpose.
    Psychiatry research. 03/2014;
  • Source
    Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 01/2010; 43(1). · 0.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Engagement in Deliberate Self-Harm (DSH) is commonly measured by behavioural scales comprised of specific methods of self-harm. However, there is a scarcity of information about the degree to which the methods relate to the same DSH construct although such scales are routinely used to provide a DSH total score. This study addresses the shortfall by evaluating the dimensionality of six commonly used behavioural measures of DSH. METHODS: The DSH measures were Self-Injury Questionnaire Treatment Related (SIQTR), Self-Injurious Thoughts and Behaviors Interview (SITBI), Deliberate Self-Harm Inventory (DSHI), Inventory of Statements About Self-Injury (ISAS), Self-Harm Information Form (SHIF) and Self-Harm Inventory (SHI). The behavioural scales contained in each measure were administered to 568 young Australians aged 18 to 30 years (62% university students, 21% mental health patients, and 17% community members). Scale quality was examined against the stringent standards for unidimensional measurement provided by the Rasch model. RESULTS: According to the stringent post-hoc tests provided by the Rasch measurement model, there is support for the unidimensionality of the items contained within each of the scales. All six scales contained items with differential item functioning, four scales contained items with local response dependency, and one item was grossly misfitting (due to a lack of discrimination). CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the use of behavioural scales to measure a DSH construct, justifies the summing of items to form a total DSH score, informs the hierarchy of DSH methods in each scale, and extends the previous evidence for reliability and external validity (as provided by test developers) to a more complete account of scale quality. Given the overall adequacy of all six scales, clinicians and researchers are recommended to select the scale that best matches their adopted definition of DSH.
    BMC Psychiatry 01/2013; 13(1):4. · 2.24 Impact Factor