Is Adolescent Suicidal Ideation Continuous or Categorical? A Taxometric Analysis

Abstract

Despite the strong association between suicidal ideation and suicidal behavior, a relative minority of ideators transition to attempting suicide. Clarifying the latent structure of suicidal ideation has direct implications for theory, as well as suicidal risk assessment and prevention efforts. Taxometric analysis is a statistical technique specifically designed to assess whether a latent construct is taxonic (i.e., categorical) or continuous (i.e., dimensional) in nature. Although this statistical approach has been increasingly used over the past decade to elucidate the latent structure of various forms of psychopathology and related risk factors, there are no taxometric studies to date of suicidal ideation. The aim of the current project is to apply taxometric methods to a sample of clinically depressed, treatment-seeking adolescents (n =334). Current suicidal ideation was measured using the Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire-Jr., (SIQ-Jr.). The results of 2 mathematically non-redundant taxometric approaches (i.e., MAXEIG and L-Mode) are consistent with a continuous latent structure for suicidal ideation. The current findings suggest that suicidal ideation in depressed adolescents is dimensional. The implication of these findings for research, theory, and suicidal risk assessment strategies are discussed.

Reexamining the latent structure of suicidal thoughts using taxometric analysis: Implications for testing ideation to action theoretical models of suicidal thoughts and behavior.

“…Including the present study, six taxometric studies of STB have been conducted to date and these provide contradictory results regarding the latent structure of STB. These studies: (i) possessed adequate sample sizes for robustly performing taxometric analyses; (ii) included indicators that met data requirements for taxometric analysis; (iii) used a sufficient number of taxometric indicators to robustly perform taxometric analyses (e.g., evidence indicates that latent structure can be accurately tested using only two taxometric indicators; Ruscio & Walters, 2011); and (iv) have been conducted analyses in-line with best practice, apart from the omission of MAMBAC results by Liu et al (2015).…”

“…These studies have examined different collections of STB indicators 1 and found varying results, raising the possibility that the authors have not necessarily examined the latent structure of the same construct. Liu et al (2015) conducted a taxometric analysis using a sample of 334 American adolescents presenting with clinically elevated depression symptoms. Three potential taxon indicators of suicidal ideation (morbid, passive, and active suicidal ideation) were derived and results from two taxometric procedures supported a dimensional structure (mean comparison curve fit index [CCFI] = 0.38; guidelines for interpreting CCFI values is provided below).…”

Race, Offense Type, and Suicide Ideation: Tests of the Interpersonal‐Psychological Theory in Juvenile Offenders

“…(2) Is the expected value of passive ideators among participants reporting burdensomeness or thwarted belongingness strictly greater than 0? Such models would technically have good theoretical fidelity and parameter parsimony, but less real‐world applicability, given that few researchers defend a strict categorical interpretation of any of these constructs (for potential exceptions, see Liu, Jones, & Spirito, ; Witte, Holm‐Denoma, Zuromski, Gauthier, & Ruscio, ).…”

Taxonomies of Death by Suicide: A Review, with Proposals for Research and Policy, and a Challenge for Suicidology

“…In any event, the usefulness of a more complete and differentiated description of suicidal behavior can scarcely be overestimated" (p. 370). This recommendation by Ellis remains valid today, and it is surprising how little work has been undertaken on the numerical taxonomy of death by suicide, although some taxonomic work has been published on non-lethal suicidal behaviors [2]. Of course, theoretical taxonomies abound (e.g., those of Durkheim and his followers), but their utility for suicide prevention programs remains doubtful [1].…”