Objective Research on suicide prevention and interventions requires a standard method for assessing both suicidal ideation and behavior to identify those at risk and to track treatment response. The Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) was designed to quantify the severity of suicidal ideation and behavior. The authors examined the psychometric properties of the scale. Method The C-SSRS’s validity relative to other measures of suicidal ideation and behavior and the internal consistency of its intensity of ideation subscale were analyzed in three multisite studies: a treatment study of adolescent suicide attempters (N=124); a medication efficacy trial with depressed adolescents (N=312); and a study of adults presenting to an emergency department for psychiatric reasons (N=237). Results The C-SSRS demonstrated good convergent and divergent validity with other multi-informant suicidal ideation and behavior scales and had high sensitivity and specificity for suicidal behavior classifications compared with another behavior scale and an independent suicide evaluation board. Both the ideation and behavior subscales were sensitive to change over time. The intensity of ideation subscale demonstrated moderate to strong internal consistency. In the adolescent suicide attempters study, worst-point lifetime suicidal ideation on the C-SSRS predicted suicide attempts during the study, whereas the Scale for Suicide Ideation did not. Participants with the two highest levels of ideation severity (intent or intent with plan) at baseline had higher odds for attempting suicide during the study. Conclusions These findings suggest that the C-SSRS is suitable for assessment of suicidal ideation and behavior in clinical and research settings.

School attendance problems (SAPs) are heterogeneous with respect to etiology and presentation. The long history of conceptualizing SAPs has led to a vast array of terms and definitions as well as different perspectives on the most helpful approach to classification. For educators, practitioners, researchers, and policymakers, this presents a challenge in understanding, assessing, and intervening with SAPs. This paper outlines evolution in the conceptualization of SAPs, focusing on two contemporary approaches to differentiating between them. One approach draws on the longstanding differentiation between SAP types labeled school refusal, truancy, and school withdrawal. A fourth type of SAP, labeled school exclusion, is also considered. The other approach focuses on the function of absenteeism, measured via the School Refusal Assessment Scale (SRAS). Anecdotal and scientific support for the SAP typology is presented, along with the benefits and shortcomings of the SRAS approach to differentiation. The paper offers suggestions for how to differentiate between SAPs and introduces the SNACK, a brief screening measure that permits differentiation by SAP type.

Objective: To examine the impact of COVID-19 restrictions among children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: Parents of 213 Australian children (5–17 years) with ADHD completed a survey in May 2020 when COVID-19 restrictions were in place (i.e., requiring citizens to stay at home except for essential reasons). Results: Compared to pre-pandemic, children had less exercise (Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.4; 95% CI 0.3–0.6), less outdoor time (OR = 0.4; 95% 0.3–0.6), and less enjoyment in activities (OR = 6.5; 95% CI 4.0–10.4), while television (OR = 4.0; 95% CI 2.5–6.5), social media (OR = 2.4; 95% CI 1.3–4.5), gaming (OR = 2.0; 95% CI 1.3–3.0), sad/depressed mood (OR = 1.8; 95% CI 1.2–2.8), and loneliness (OR = 3.6; 95% CI 2.3–5.5) were increased. Child stress about COVID-19 restrictions was associated with poorer functioning across most domains. Most parents (64%) reported positive changes for their child including more family time. Conclusions: COVID-19 restrictions were associated with both negative and positive impacts among children with ADHD.

Phenomenological and cultural understandings of recovery from the perspective of individuals who engage in nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) are rare. The primary study objective was to understand similarities across three samples in (a) how young people define recovery from NSSI and (b) what they consider helpful approaches taken by parents and professionals to assist their recovery. Using a cross-national sample of young people (n = 98) from Australia (n = 48), Belgium (n = 25) and the United States (n = 25), we assessed their perspectives on NSSI. Consistent across all samples, young people defined recovery as no longer having the urge to self-injure when distressed, often displayed ambivalence about recovery, and reported it was helpful when parents and professionals were calm and understanding. Acceptance of

No abstract