The clinical utility of the MMPI–2–RF Suicidal/Death Ideation Scale.

Abstract

Suicide is a major public health concern with over 100 individuals dying by suicide per day in the United States alone. Therefore, suicide risk assessment is an essential aspect of mental health care. The MMPI-2-RF has a Suicidal/Death Ideation (SUI) scale consisting of 5 items that describe recent suicidal ideation or behaviors. Although this scale has clear face validity, few studies have examined the clinical utility of this scale. The purpose of the current study was to examine associations between the SUI scale and other established measures of suicidal ideation and behavior, including the Depressive Symptom Inventory Suicidality Subscale (DSI-SS), Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation (BSS), self-report of lifetime suicide attempts, and clinician ratings of suicide risk. Participants were 998 therapy- and assessment-seeking outpatients. Analyses indicated that the SUI scale was positively associated with other self-reported measures of suicidal ideation and behavior. Significant differences in SUI scale scores also emerged among the clinician rating categories of suicide risk. The SUI scale was able to predict previous suicide attempts over and above age, gender, and other MMPI-2-RF scales related to depression. Finally, relative risk ratios for suicide attempts indicate increased risk of suicidality with higher T-scores on the SUI scale. Overall, findings suggest that the MMPI-2-RF SUI scale may be a useful tool for identifying individuals at risk for suicidal ideation and behavior in clinical settings.

The Impact of Varying Levels of Confidentiality on Disclosure of Suicidal Thoughts in a Sample of United States National Guard Personnel

“…That being said, prior studies have reported that these two measures, even when scored continuously, correspond extremely highly with one another. Indeed, whereas the two measures were only modestly correlated with one another in our sample (r = .48), prior work has indicated that the two exhibit a nearly perfect correlation with one another (r = .90; Gottfried et al, 2014). Given these vastly discrepant findings across samples, we believe that the more parsimonious interpretation is that soldiers in our sample responded differently to each measure because of the differential incentives in place, given the varying levels of confidentiality associated with each measure.…”

“…As such, concerns that our two measures of current suicidal thoughts are assessing different constructs are warranted if the measures are scored continuously; however, when dichotomized, we can reasonably assume that the two measures assess the presence and absence of suicidal thoughts, with some individuals endorsing more severe, persistent, and detailed thoughts than others. It should also be noted that, in other studies, the DSI-SS and BSS have correlated at such high levels (r = .90) that an argument could be made that they assess the same construct even when scored continuously (Gottfried, Bodell, Carbonell, & Joiner, 2014). The alpha coefficient for the participants included in our analyses was .81.…”

“…It should also be noted that, in other studies, the DSI-SS and BSS have correlated at such high levels (r = .90) that an argument could be made that they assess the same construct even when scored continuously (Gottfried, Bodell, Carbonell, & Joiner, 2014). The alpha coefficient for the participants included in our analyses was .81.…”

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Persian Version of Depression, Anxiety and Stress (DASS-42): Non-Clinical Sample

“…The functioning reflected in T-scores. A T-score of 65 or higher interpreted as a score in clinical range (17). The reliability coefficient of scales for main test are 0.70 and 0.80 with split method.…”

Descriptive Profiles of the MMPI-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) across a National Sample of Four Veteran Affairs Treatment Settings

“…The validity scales consistently discriminate between valid and invalid patterns of responding (Goodwin et al 2013;Nelson et al 2011;Sellbom et al 2012b;Shura et al 2017), offering a means to evaluate the potential for response bias within the VA (Ray 2017). Similarly, the substantive scales are useful in predicting diagnostic presentations and identifying important clinical concerns (Koffel et al 2012;Gottfried et al 2014;Sellbom et al 2012a;Wolf et al 2008). Moreover, the substantive scales have also been shown to predict treatment engagement (Anestis et al 2015;Arbisi et al 2013) and other treatment outcomes (Arbisi et al 2008;Forbey et al 2012).…”