Assessment and Self-Injury: Implications for Counselors

Abstract

This article provides readers with an understanding of self-injury assessment. The article begins with a critical review of a number of self-injury assessments. The latter section of the article introduces a comprehensive two-tiered approach to accurately assessing self-injury. Implications for counselors related to the assessment of self-injury are also provided.Keywords self-injury, assessment, self-injurious behavior Self-injurious behavior is an increasing issue among adolescents and young adults. According to current research, self-injurious behavior occurs in 4% to 39% of adolescents in the general population and the numbers are predicted to rise, due to various reasons, ranging from levels and quality of social interactions with peers to the availability and assimilation of coping behaviors through access to the

Preliminary Evidence for the Effectiveness of Dialectical Behavior Therapy for Adolescents

“…In the majority of the studies, the groups were similar at baseline, and the researchers mentioned the number of dropouts. Nearly half of the studies randomized treatment (Apsche, Bass, & Houston, 2006;Cooney et al, 2012;Cwik, 2006;Goldstein et al, 2015;Mehlum et al, 2014) and described the calculation of statistical power (Cwik, 2006;Katz, Cox, Gunasekara, & Miller, 2004;Lenz & Del Conte, 2018;Wasser, Tyler, McIlhaney, Taplin, & Henderson, 2008;Wineman, 2009). Only two conducted an analysis on the intent-to-treat sample (Goldstein et al, 2015;Mehlum et al, 2014).…”

“…to the difficulty involved in implementing standard DBT-A treatment in real-world settings. DBT-A includes several modes of treatment delivery, and only half of the studies included in our analysis (Cooney et al, 2012;Goldstein et al, 2015;Katz et al, 2004;Lenz & Del Conte, 2018;Mehlum et al, 2014;Rathus & Miller, 2002) implemented a full DBT protocol with all treatment modes. The complexities involved in successfully implementing a program that adheres to the fidelity of the treatment may limit counselors' ability to design high-quality between-group studies.…”

“…Although these results are promising, there was a lot of variation in how studies measured suicidality, and this could have affected these results. For example, some studies used standardized assessments of suicidal thoughts (Goldstein et al, 2015;Katz et al, 2004;Mehlum et al, 2014), such as the Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire-Junior (Reynolds, 1987), whereas others reported the actual frequency of suicide attempts (Cooney et al, 2012;Rathus & Miller, 2002). This variation, including the disparity in measurement time frames and settings between studies, may have affected these results.…”

“…Adolescents who do not receive adequate care struggle academically and behaviorally, are more likely to have difficulty with employment, and are more likely to engage in illegal activities later in life compared with adolescents who receive mental health treatment (Essau, Lewinsohn, Olaya, & Seeley, ; Suldo, Thalji, & Ferron, ; Zara & Farrington, ). Researchers report that up to half of adolescents in the United States have engaged in self‐injury at some point in their lives (Craigen, Healey, Walley, Byrd, & Schuster, ). In addition, suicide is the second leading cause of death for adolescents, and up to 30% of adolescents who struggle with depression also have endorsed thoughts of suicide (Avenevoli, Swendsen, He, Burstein, & Merikangas, ; Heron, ).…”

Self-Injury and Suicide: Practical Information for College Counselors

“…Although the figures presented on lifetime prevalence rates of SI differ by study (Laye–Gindhu & Schonert–Reichl, ), adults typically represent the lowest rates (Jacobson & Gould, ). Jacobson and Gould () found a lifetime prevalence rate of 13% to 23% for adolescents, whereas Craigen, Healey, Walley, Byrd, and Schuster () found estimates of adolescent SI ranging from 4% to 39%. Among college students, rates of SI are estimated to range from 17% (Whitlock et al, ) to 39% (Hamza, Willoughby, & Good, ).…”