Use of the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) in a large sample of Veterans receiving mental health services in the Veterans Health Administration

To evaluate the associations of self-reports of suicidal ideation and behavior using the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) in a survey of patients receiving mental health services in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) with reports of attempts documented in medical records and adm...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inSuicide & life-threatening behavior Vol. 50; no. 1; p. 111
Main Authors Katz, Ira, Barry, Catherine N, Cooper, Samantha A, Kasprow, Wesley J, Hoff, Rani A
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England 01.02.2020
Online AccessGet more information

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:To evaluate the associations of self-reports of suicidal ideation and behavior using the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) in a survey of patients receiving mental health services in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) with reports of attempts documented in medical records and administrative data. The C-SSRS was administered to 15,373 Veterans in the Veterans Outcome Assessment (VOA) survey. Concurrent validity was evaluated by comparing self-reports from the past 3 months with VHA records. Predictive validity was evaluated by logistic regression models using attempts over the subsequent 3 months as the outcome. Tests of concurrent validity found strong associations between self-reports and attempts documented in VHA records, but there were substantial numbers of discordant responses. In tests of predictive validity, area under the ROC curve for predicting future attempts was >0.8. There were differences in the distribution of responses and of psychometric properties across VHA mental health programs. Findings support the value of screening and the validity of the self-reports based on the C-SSRS, but limitations in concordance with medical records and variability across programs suggest the need for clinical judgment in interpreting responses.
ISSN:1943-278X
DOI:10.1111/sltb.12584