A Method for Evaluating Competency in Assessment and Management of Suicide Risk

Abstract

The findings support the usefulness of the CAI-S for evaluating competency in suicide risk-assessment and management.

Suicide risk assessment training for psychology doctoral programs: Core competencies and a framework for training.

“…However, the state of the empirical knowledge about suicide training workshops in enhancing care and suicide prevention still needs work. Also, as evaluated by expert raters among other evaluative mechanisms, training in suicide risk assessment and intervention planning has been shown to increase the quality of interviews and documentation (Hung et al, 2012; McNiel et al, 2008). …”

“…Because of low base rates and other methodological concerns, this problem may be a difficult one to address as suicide risk assessment training research moves forward. Current training research also possesses sampling concerns; specifically, samples are mostly limited to medical/psychiatric settings and trainees (e.g., Hung et al, 2012). Germane to psychology training, most studies lack any psychology trainees and those that do include them show a single digit number of such participants (e.g., Fenwick et al, 2004; McNiel et al, 2008).…”

“…Even when longitudinal data were collected on the efficacy of such programs (e.g., Oordt et al, 2009), lack of a comparison group limits the ability of researchers to conclude that the ability to conduct effective suicide risk assessments is due to the specific training experience as opposed to other learning opportunities There is also a lack of consistency in the content and method of training. Very few (e.g., Hung et al, 2012) focus on evidence-based core competencies for risk assessment, and where competency-based training is implemented, those competencies differ greatly (e.g., Hung et al, 2012 vs. King, Lloyd, Meehan, O’Neill, & Wilesmith, 2006). There is a clear need to identify a streamlined list of core competencies for concise yet comprehensive training.…”

“…There is a clear need to identify a streamlined list of core competencies for concise yet comprehensive training. An additional disparity is that some types of programs utilize psychoeducational workshops and role plays (e.g., Oordt et al, 2009), whereas others integrate more involved vignette (e.g., McNiel et al, 2008) or videotaped interview strategies (e.g., Hung et al, 2012; Morriss et al, 1999). …”

“…Competency assessment instruments of trainee skill mastery were formulated to provide expert raters with a way to rate trainee performance. For example Hung et al (2012) created and tested the Competency Assessment Instrument-Suicide (CAI-S), which includes 29 domain-specific competencies to master (each rates on a 4-point scale), as well as an overall rating of trainee competence on an 8-point scale (see Hung et al, 2012; McNiel et al, 2011 for further details). It should be noted that interrater reliability was established in the process of experts rating trainee competence.…”