The Relationship Between Nonsuicidal Self‐Injury and Suicidal Ideation

Abstract

This correlational study was conducted with 403 undergraduate college students from 2 universities. The authors used path analysis and bootstrap regression to analyze the relationships between variables. Locus of control and family connectedness related to current nonsuicidal self‐injury (NSSI) engagement. However, when entered into the same regression, the variables current NSSI engagement and current NSSI number of methods used mediated all other relationships with suicidal ideation. Implications to current theories and clinical practice are provided.

A Comparative Analysis of Three Screening Methods for Nonsuicidal Self‐Injury in College Students

“…In contrast, almost 75% of those who screened positive on any measure screened positive on the DSHI, and almost 90% of those who screened positive on any measure screened positive on the ISAS. The positive screen rate of 30% on the checklist measures is similar to the 25% positive screen rate that Klonsky and Olino (2008) and Wester et al (2016) found when using checklist measures in college samples. Similarly, our positive screen rate of 13% on the simple screen is similar to the positive screen rate of 12% that Heath et al (2008) found when using a one‐item simple screen in a college student sample.…”

“…N onsuicidal self‐injury (NSSI)—that is, the deliberate harming of one's body tissue without the intention of committing suicide and not for socially sanctioned reasons (Klonsky, Muehlenkamp, Lewis, & Walsh, 2011)—has received attention among counselors working with college student populations. In a recent study of NSSI in a college sample, researchers found a prevalence rate of 25% (Wester, Ivers, Villalba, Trepal, & Henson, 2016). Other researchers have reported even higher prevalence rates, such as a 35% lifetime NSSI prevalence rate (Gratz, 2001).…”

“…Such concerns about overly sensitive NSSI checklists have resulted in some researchers using a single question about participants’ NSSI history (e.g., “Have you ever hurt yourself on purpose without suicidal intent?”) before administering a more detailed NSSI checklist (e.g., Heath, Toste, Nedecheva, & Charlebois, 2008). However, this may lead to lower positive screening rates—almost 12% in Heath et al's (2008) university sample, which was screened with a single general item, compared with 25% in Wester et al's (2016) college student sample, which was screened with the Deliberate Self‐Harm Inventory (DSHI; Gratz, 2001) behavior checklist. This difference in prevalence may be because behavior checklists probe a variety of specific behaviors, rather than allowing each individual respondent to conceptualize his or her own definition of what behaviors constitute self‐injury when responding to items.…”

Factor structure, factorial invariance, and validity of the Multidimensional Shame-Related Response Inventory-21 (MSRI-21).

“…Coefficient-α for the present study was .80 (95% CI [.76, .83]). This instrument was selected for inclusion as a measure of past and future suicidal ideation and behaviors, which have been empirically linked to nonsuicidal self-injury and self-harm in general (e.g., Wester, Ivers, Villalba, Trepal, & Henson, 2016). An association between scores on SBQ-R and maladaptive behavior tendency was expected based on previous research linking scores on SBQ-R with measures of self-harm (Gutierrez et al, 2001; Manca, Presaghi, & Cerutti, 2014).…”

The PARALLEL Study (imPAct of expeRiencing Another’s seLf harm and suicidaL bEhaviour in hospitaL)

“…With regard to recent incidents good therapeutic relationships were reported, which were perceived to reduce negative feelings as a consequence of self-harm and/or suicidal behaviour. This is perhaps unsurprising since there is clear evidence that relationships are central to recovery and well-being (Tew et If self-harm becomes more familiar, inhibition may be reduced as non-suicidal self-injury desensitises an individual to self-harm, thereby increasing acquired capability to attempt suicide (Wester et al, 2016). A previous study of self-harm in psychiatric inpatients found it to be highly contagious, with clusters of incidents (Beasely, 1999).…”