Measuring engagement in deliberate self-harm behaviours: psychometric evaluation of six scales

Abstract

BackgroundEngagement 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsAccording 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).ConclusionsThis 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.

Probing the implicit suicidal mind: Does the Death/Suicide Implicit Association Test reveal a desire to die, or a diminished desire to live?

“…This is similar to a recent article byLatimer, Meade, and Tennant (2013) in which the mode of administration of SITBI items was changed to a pencil-andpaper, self-report format. The authors conducted a psychometric evaluation of six scales measuring self-harm behaviors including an 11-item scale selected from the SITBI.…”

Borderline personality disorder features, emotion dysregulation and non‐suicidal self‐injury: Preliminary findings in a sample of community‐dwelling Italian adolescents

“…Klonsky & Olino, ; Nock et al, ; Sansone et al, ). Indeed, the formation of a total score formed by summing the frequency of reported self‐harm over a period of time is based on the premise that (1) the frequency of self‐harm behaviour is clinically informative and (2) the various methods included in the counting procedure all relate to the same underlying NNSI construct (Latimer et al, ). Finally, our study was based on a cross‐sectional design; although we performed mediation analyses, the design of our study prevented us from studying any causal relationship.…”

Individuals with current suicidal ideation demonstrate implicit “fearlessness of death”

“…Although originally designed as a structured clinical interview (SITBI: Nock, Holmberg, Photos, & Michel, 2007) this measure has since been converted to a self-report format (Latimer, Meade, & Tennant, 2013), which was used here. Both formats have demonstrated good reliability and validity.…”