↓ Skip to main content

The ABC’s of Suicide Risk Assessment: Applying a Tripartite Approach to Individual Evaluations

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 X users
wikipedia
9 Wikipedia pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
180 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The ABC’s of Suicide Risk Assessment: Applying a Tripartite Approach to Individual Evaluations
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0127442
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keith M. Harris, Jia-Jia Syu, Owen D. Lello, Y. L. Eileen Chew, Christopher H. Willcox, Roger H. M. Ho

Abstract

There is considerable need for accurate suicide risk assessment for clinical, screening, and research purposes. This study applied the tripartite affect-behavior-cognition theory, the suicidal barometer model, classical test theory, and item response theory (IRT), to develop a brief self-report measure of suicide risk that is theoretically-grounded, reliable and valid. An initial survey (n = 359) employed an iterative process to an item pool, resulting in the six-item Suicidal Affect-Behavior-Cognition Scale (SABCS). Three additional studies tested the SABCS and a highly endorsed comparison measure. Studies included two online surveys (Ns = 1007, and 713), and one prospective clinical survey (n = 72; Time 2, n = 54). Factor analyses demonstrated SABCS construct validity through unidimensionality. Internal reliability was high (α = .86-.93, split-half = .90-.94)). The scale was predictive of future suicidal behaviors and suicidality (r = .68, .73, respectively), showed convergent validity, and the SABCS-4 demonstrated clinically relevant sensitivity to change. IRT analyses revealed the SABCS captured more information than the comparison measure, and better defined participants at low, moderate, and high risk. The SABCS is the first suicide risk measure to demonstrate no differential item functioning by sex, age, or ethnicity. In all comparisons, the SABCS showed incremental improvements over a highly endorsed scale through stronger predictive ability, reliability, and other properties. The SABCS is in the public domain, with this publication, and is suitable for clinical evaluations, public screening, and research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 180 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 174 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 12%
Student > Bachelor 20 11%
Researcher 18 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Other 37 21%
Unknown 35 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 67 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 38 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 7%
Social Sciences 12 7%
Computer Science 4 2%
Other 11 6%
Unknown 35 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 February 2023.
All research outputs
#2,387,352
of 24,791,202 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#29,508
of 214,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,023
of 272,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#870
of 6,852 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,791,202 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 214,573 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,757 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6,852 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.