Linguistic adaptation and psychometric properties of the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale among a heterogeneous sample of adolescents in Turkey

Abstract

Objective

The Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale is a semistructured, interview-based assessment tool, which is increasingly being used for clinical and research purposes across the globe, despite its limited psychometric evaluation outside of English-speaking populations. The aim of this study was to linguistically adapt the measure and investigate reliability, validity, and factor structure of the Turkish version of the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale in a heterogeneous sample of psychiatric and nonpsychiatric outpatient adolescents.

Method

The study included four clinical groups: two psychiatric, nonsuicidal outpatient groups (depression group (N = 50) and nondepression group (N = 50)), suicidal group (N = 43), and nonpsychiatric general practitioners’ group (N = 70). All participants were interviewed with the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale and suicidality module of the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview for children and adolescents. They also completed the Suicide Probability Scale, Child Depression Inventory, Beck Hopelessness Scale, and their parents filled in the Child Behavior Checklist.

Results

The scale was found to be a solidly reliable measure with good internal consistency and agreement among interviewers. It correlated in the expected direction with self- and parent-report measures of associated constructs (e.g., depression) as well as suicidality. Consistent with the developers’ intent of theoretical subscales, a three-factor solution (i.e., the severity of suicidal ideation, the intensity of suicidal ideation, and suicidal behavior) fit the data well, and it fit the data significantly better than the alternative models. Last, the Turkish Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale successfully discriminated the adolescents with a recent history of suicide attempts from other clinical groups.

Conclusion

The Turkish version of the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale is a reliable and valid instrument to assess suicide risk among adolescents.

Keywords

Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale Turkish reliability validity factor structure adolescent

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

World Health Organization. Preventing preventing suicide: a global imperative. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press, 2014.

Goldston

Molock

Whitbeck

et al . Cultural considerations in adolescent suicide prevention and psychosocial treatment. Am Psychol 2008; 63: 14–31.

Merkel

Identity discourses and communities in international events, festivals and spectacles. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.

Charara

Forouzanfar

Naghavi

et al . The burden of mental disorders in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, 1990-2013. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0169575

Coskun

Zoroglu

Ghaziuddin

Suicide rates among Turkish and American youth: a cross-cultural comparison. Arch Suicide Res 2012; 16: 59–72.

Ekici

Savas

Citak

Psychosocial factors increasing suicide risk (absence of social security, immigration, and other stressors). Anatol J Psychiatry 2001; 2: 204–212.

Altindag

Ozkan

Oto

Suicide in Batman, southeastern Turkey. Suicide Life Threat Behav 2005; 35: 478–482.

Yasan

Danis

Tamam

et al . Socio-cultural features and sex profile of the individuals with serious suicide attempts in southeastern Turkey: a one-year survey. Suicide Life Threat Behav 2008; 38: 467–480.

Kerr

Gibson

Leve

et al . Young adult follow-up of adolescent girls in juvenile justice using the Columbia suicide severity rating scale. Suicide Life Threat Behav 2014; 44: 113–129.

10.

King

Berona

Czyz

et al . Identifying adolescents at highly elevated risk for suicidal behavior in the emergency department. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol 2015; 25: 100–108.

11.

Posner

Brown

Stanley

et al . The Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale: initial validity and internal consistency findings from three multisite studies with adolescents and adults. Am J Psychiatry 2011; 168: 1266–1277.

12.

Giddens

Sheehan

DV.

The Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS): has the “gold standard” become a liability?

Innov Clin Neurosci 2014; 11: 66–80.

13.

Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry “suicidality”: prospective assessment of occurrence in clinical trials, draft guidance. 2012. www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm225130.pdf

14.

Ghasemi

Shaghaghi

Allahverdipour

Measurement scales of suicidal ideation and attitudes: a systematic review article. Health Promot Perspect 2015; 5: 156–168.

15.

Mundt

Greist

Gelenberg

et al . Feasibility and validation of a computer-automated Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale using interactive voice response technology. J Psychiatr Res 2010; 44: 1224–1228.

16.

Youngstrom

Hameed

Mitchell

et al . Direct comparison of the psychometric properties of multiple interview and patient-rated assessments of suicidal ideation and behavior in an adult psychiatric inpatient sample. J Clin Psychiatry 2015; 76: 1676–1682.

17.

Madan

Frueh

Allen

et al . Psychometric reevaluation of the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale: findings from a prospective, inpatient cohort of severely mentally Ill adults. J Clin Psychiatry 2016; 77: e867–e873.

18.

Mundt

Greist

Jefferson

et al . Prediction of suicidal behavior in clinical research by lifetime suicidal ideation and behavior ascertained by the electronic Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale. J Clin Psychiatry 2013; 74: 887–893.

19.

Horwitz

Czyz

King

CA.

Predicting future suicide attempts among adolescent and emerging adult psychiatric emergency patients. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol 2015; 44: 751–761.

20.

Conway

Erlangsen

Teasdale

et al.

Predictive validity of the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale for short-term suicidal behavior: a Danish study of adolescents at a high risk of suicide. Arch Suicide Res 2017; 21: 455–469.

21.

Gipson

Agarwala

Opperman

et al . Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale: predictive validity with adolescent psychiatric emergency patients. Pediatr Emerg Care 2015; 31: 88–94.

22.

Columbia University. The Columbia Lighthouse Project, translations. 2017. www.cssrs.columbia.edu/the-columbia-scale-c-ssrs/translations/

23.

Al-Halabí

Sáiz

Buron

et al . Validation of a Spanish version of the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS). Rev Psiquiatr Salud Ment 2016; 9: 134–142.

24.

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th ed. Text Revision ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 2000.

25.

Sheehan

Lecrubier

Sheehan

et al . The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry 1998; 59: 22–33, quiz 4–57.

26.

Sheehan

Shytle

et al . Reliability and validity of the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview for Children and Adolescents (MINI-KID). J Clin Psychiatry 2010; 71: 313–326.

27.

Engeler

Turkish adaptation of the MINI International Neuropsychiatric Interview version 5.0.0. Istanbul: GlaoSmithKlein, 2004.

28.

Cull

Gill

WS.

Suicide Probability Scale manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services, 1990.

29.

Eskin

Reliability of the Turkish version of the perceived social support from friends and family scales, scale for interpersonal behavior, and Suicide Probability Scale. J Clin Psychol 1993; 49: 515–522.

30.

Atlı

Eskin

Dereboy

Ç.

The validity and the reliability of Suicide Probability Scale (SPS) in clinical sample. Klinik Psikiyatri 2009; 12: 111–124.

31.

Beck

Weissman

Lester

et al . The measurement of pessimism: the hopelessness scale. J Consult Clin Psychol 1974; 42: 861–865.

32.

Durak

Reliability and validity study of the Beck Hopelessness Scale. Turk J Psychol 1994; 9: 1–11.

33.

Kovacs

Rating scales to assess depression in school-aged children. Acta Paedopsychiatr 1981; 46: 305–315.

34.

Children’s Depression Inventory: a study of reliability and validity.

Turk Psikiyatri Dergisi 1991; 2: 132–136.

35.

Achenbach

TM.

Manual for the child behaviour checklist/4-18 and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry, 1991.

36.

Erol

Arslan

Akçakın

The adaptation and standardization of the child behaviour checklist among 6-18 year old Turkish children. In: Sergeant

(ed) Eunethydis: European approaches to hyperkinetic disorders. Zurich: Fotorotor Egg, 1995, pp. 109–113.

37.

IBM Corp. IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 23.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp., 2015.

38.

Muthén

BO.

Mplus v. 6.12. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén, 2011.

39.

R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2011.

40.

Gadermann

Guhn

Zumbo

BD.

Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Pract Assess Res Eval 2012; 17: 1–13.

41.

Nunnally

Bernstein

Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.

42.

Cohen

Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 1968; 70: 213–220.

43.

Jöreskog

KG.

On the estimation of polychoric correlations and their asymptotic covariance matrix. Psychometrika 1994; 59: 381–318.

44.

Flora

Curran

PJ.

An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychol Methods 2004; 9: 466–491.

45.

Brown

TA.

Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press, 2006.

46.

Browne

Cudeck

Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: KA

Bollen

Long

(eds) Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 1993, pp. 136–162.

47.

Bentler

PM.

Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull 1990; 107: 238–246.

48.

Bentler

PM.

Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 1999; 6: 1–55.

49.

Dirks

De Los Reyes

Briggs-Gowan

et al . Annual research review: embracing not erasing contextual variability in children’s behavior – theory and utility in the selection and use of methods and informants in developmental psychopathology. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2012; 53: 558–574.

50.

Hunsley

Mash

EJ.

Evidence-based assessment. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2007; 3: 29–51.

51.

De Los Reyes

Thomas

Goodman

et al . Principles underlying the use of multiple informants’ reports. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2013; 9: 123–149.

52.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Lee

et al . Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 2003; 88: 879–903.

53.

Zalsman

Shoval

Mansbach-Kleinfeld

et al . Maternal versus adolescent reports of suicidal behaviors: a nationwide survey in Israel. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2016; 25: 1349–1359.

54.

Hesdorffer

French

Posner

et al . Suicidal ideation and behavior screening in intractable focal epilepsy eligible for drug trials. Epilepsia 2013; 54: 879–887.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.91 MB