Utility of the Death-Implicit Association Test in a Sample of Suicidal Inpatients

IF 2.8 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Kayla A. Lord, Tyler B. Rice, Hannah C. Levy, Kimberly S. Sain, Jessica Stubbing, Gretchen J. Diefenbach, David F. Tolin
{"title":"Utility of the Death-Implicit Association Test in a Sample of Suicidal Inpatients","authors":"Kayla A. Lord, Tyler B. Rice, Hannah C. Levy, Kimberly S. Sain, Jessica Stubbing, Gretchen J. Diefenbach, David F. Tolin","doi":"10.1007/s10608-024-10465-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Purpose</h3><p>Research suggests that performance on the Death-Implicit Association Test (D-IAT) converges with explicit indicators of suicide risk (e.g., suicidal ideation, suicidal behaviors). However, the utility of the D-IAT in acute care settings has been questioned given limited studies and inconsistent findings. Additionally, it remains unclear whether the D-IAT incrementally improves the assessment of suicide risk beyond explicit measures.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Method</h3><p>The present study evaluated the validity of the D-IAT in a large sample of psychiatric inpatients who attempted suicide within the past two years (<i>N</i> = 203; <i>M</i> age = 32.93 [<i>SD</i> = 12.61]; 50.7% female; 63.5% White; 22.7% Hispanic/Latino). The D-IAT was scored three ways: (1) conventional <i>D</i> scoring where positive scores indicate stronger implicit associations with death, (2) dichotomized <i>D</i> scores where participants were categorized based on positive or negative <i>D</i> score, and (3) <i>DD</i> scoring, which is a novel procedure that differentiates self-identification with death (Me-<i>DD</i>) from a lack of identification with life (Not Me-<i>DD</i>).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p><i>D</i> and Not Me-<i>DD</i> were weakly associated with suicide cognitions, hopelessness, suicidal ideation, and wishes to live/die and there were corresponding mean differences based on dichotomized <i>D</i> scores. <i>D</i> and Not Me-<i>DD</i> were also weakly correlated with number of lifetime suicide attempts. Me-<i>DD</i> evidenced fewer significant associations than Not Me-<i>DD</i> suggesting that a lack of association with life may be the central component of <i>D</i> scores.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>Findings suggest that the D-IAT may not be a useful standalone measure of suicide risk in high-risk populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":48316,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Therapy and Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Therapy and Research","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-024-10465-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Research suggests that performance on the Death-Implicit Association Test (D-IAT) converges with explicit indicators of suicide risk (e.g., suicidal ideation, suicidal behaviors). However, the utility of the D-IAT in acute care settings has been questioned given limited studies and inconsistent findings. Additionally, it remains unclear whether the D-IAT incrementally improves the assessment of suicide risk beyond explicit measures.

Method

The present study evaluated the validity of the D-IAT in a large sample of psychiatric inpatients who attempted suicide within the past two years (N = 203; M age = 32.93 [SD = 12.61]; 50.7% female; 63.5% White; 22.7% Hispanic/Latino). The D-IAT was scored three ways: (1) conventional D scoring where positive scores indicate stronger implicit associations with death, (2) dichotomized D scores where participants were categorized based on positive or negative D score, and (3) DD scoring, which is a novel procedure that differentiates self-identification with death (Me-DD) from a lack of identification with life (Not Me-DD).

Results

D and Not Me-DD were weakly associated with suicide cognitions, hopelessness, suicidal ideation, and wishes to live/die and there were corresponding mean differences based on dichotomized D scores. D and Not Me-DD were also weakly correlated with number of lifetime suicide attempts. Me-DD evidenced fewer significant associations than Not Me-DD suggesting that a lack of association with life may be the central component of D scores.

Conclusions

Findings suggest that the D-IAT may not be a useful standalone measure of suicide risk in high-risk populations.

死亡内隐联想测验在有自杀倾向的住院病人样本中的实用性
目的研究表明,死亡内隐联想测验(D-IAT)的成绩与自杀风险的明确指标(如自杀意念、自杀行为)趋同。然而,由于研究有限且结果不一致,D-IAT 在急症护理环境中的实用性受到了质疑。此外,D-IAT 是否能在显性测量之外逐步改善自杀风险评估,目前仍不清楚。本研究对过去两年内试图自杀的精神科住院患者(样本数 = 203;中位年龄 = 32.93 [SD = 12.61];女性占 50.7%;白人占 63.5%;西班牙/拉丁美洲裔占 22.7%)进行了大样本 D-IAT 有效性评估。D-IAT有三种计分方式:(1)传统的D计分方式,阳性分数表示与死亡的内隐关联更强;(2)二分法D计分方式,根据阳性或阴性D分数对参与者进行分类;(3)DD计分方式,这是一种区分自我死亡认同(Me-DD)和缺乏生命认同(Not Me-DD)的新程序。结果D和非Me-DD与自杀认知、绝望、自杀意念和求生/求死愿望有微弱的相关性,并且根据二分法计算的D得分存在相应的平均差异。D和非Me-DD与终生自杀未遂次数也呈弱相关。与非 Me-DD 相比,Me-DD 的显著相关性较低,这表明 D 评分的核心部分可能与生活缺乏关联。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cognitive Therapy and Research
Cognitive Therapy and Research PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: Cognitive Therapy and Research (COTR) focuses on the investigation of cognitive processes in human adaptation and adjustment and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). It is an interdisciplinary journal welcoming submissions from diverse areas of psychology, including cognitive, clinical, developmental, experimental, personality, social, learning, affective neuroscience, emotion research, therapy mechanism, and pharmacotherapy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信