Perceived Barriers to Care Measure--Marine Corps Adaptation

VanSickle, Marcus; Werbel, Aaron; Perera, Kanchana U.; Pak, Kyna; DeYoung, Kathryn A.; Ghahramanlou‐Holloway, Marjan

doi:10.1037/t54158-000

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…< 0.5) (Hubbard and McIntosh, 1992;Kaniwa et al, 2012;Mackesy-Amiti et al, 1996). By contrast, Vansickle et al (2016), Diekstra & Kerkhof (1988), and Ouzouni & Nakakis (Ouzouni and Nakakis, 2009) found excellent internal consistencies (i.e. α ≥ 0.9) for the SOQ, the SUIATT and the Attitude Towards Attempted Suicide-Questionnaire (ATAS-Q), respectively.…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…For several scales, validation procedures were replicated across studies, sometimes in different languages. From that respect, most robustly validated instruments are the Suicide Opinion Questionnaire (SOQ) (Anderson et al, 2008;Beautrais et al, 2004;Domino et al, 1982Domino et al, , 1988Domino et al, , 2000Leane and Shute, 1998;Lee, 2019;Limbacher and Domino, 1986;McAuliffe et al, 2003;DeShon, 1992, 1995;VanSickle et al, 2016), the Attitudes toward suicide (ATTS) (Estrada et al, 2019;Ji et al, 2016;Kodaka et al, 2013;Mofidi et al, 2008;Norheim et al, 2013;Renberg and Jacobsson, 2003;Siau et al, 2017) and The Beliefs in the Inheritance of Risk Factors for Suicide Scale (BIRFFS) (Voracek et al, 2007a(Voracek et al, , 2007b(Voracek et al, , 2007c(Voracek et al, , 2008c(Voracek et al, , 2008b, which are internationally available.…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Remarkable exceptions were the ATTS, the SBAQ, and the Chinese Attitudes Toward Suicide Questionnaire-Hong Kong (CASQ-HK) for which the internal consistency, the structural validity and the content validity were all at least once assessed with good or excellent methodology (Botega et al, 2005;Estrada et al, 2019;Lee et al, 2007;Renberg and Jacobsson, 2003;Siau et al, 2017). We also rated Vansickle et al's assessment of the structural validity of SOQ (VanSickle et al, 2016) as excellent.…”

Section: Quality Of the Validation Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reliability assessment was conducted according to good standards only for the ATTS. Among the few instruments for which the evaluation of hypothesis testing was carried out, only the SOQ and the PFC-KT complied to good methods (Anderson et al, 2008;Beautrais et al, 2004;Domino et al, 1982Domino et al, , 1988Domino et al, , 2000Leane and Shute, 1998;Lee, 2019;Limbacher and Domino, 1986;Mackesy-Amiti et al, 1996;McAuliffe et al, 2003;DeShon, 1992, 1995;VanSickle et al, 2016). As regards responsiveness, quality reached the good score in Mackesy-Amiti et al's assessment of the PFC-KT (Mackesy-Amiti et al, 1996), in Botega et al's assessment of the SBAQ (Botega et al, 2007), in Bean & Baber's assessment of the GK (Bean and Baber, 2011) and Kaniwa et al's scale (Kaniwa et al, 2012).…”

Section: Quality Of the Validation Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Assessing knowledge of suicide: a systematic review of available instruments

Porte¹,

Wathelet²,

Grandgenèvre³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. Literacy of suicide is the corner stone of numerous prevention programs but is a difficult construct to appraise. To bring methodological and epistemological clarifications, we aimed to investigate the actual content and psychometric properties of the available tools designed to inquire knowledge of suicide.Methods. We conducted a systematic review of the literature. Electronic databases were searched for questionnaire assessing literacy, attitudes, knowledge or misconceptions about suicide. After checking the quality of validation procedures, we exhaustively collected the psychometric properties of the scales. Contents were submitted to a qualitative thematic analysis.Results. We identified 18 unique instruments from 48 papers. On the metrological level, general poor to fair compliance with validation standards and variability of psychometric properties stand out as the most prominent results. As regards to the constructs that instruments appraise, we derived 6 thematic categories of knowledge: epidemiology, consequences of media coverage and 4 common myths about the presumed monocausality, unpredictability, harmlessness and unpreventability of suicidal behaviors. Overall, five scales emerge as robust and/or valid enough tools to probe knowledge of suicide.Limitations. We chose selection criteria based on a priori conceptions of literacy. This may have restricted the scope of retrievable scales and limited our inferences about what is explored under the labels “knowledge” or “literacy”.Conclusions. To design refined instruments about literacy of suicide, scholars should consider differentiating the types of knowledge under exploration. Adapted rating procedure with clearer standards about the truthfulness of statements could improve psychometric quality and interpretability.

show abstract