The Controllability of Suicidal Thoughts (CoST) Scale: Development, factor structure, and initial validation.

IF 3.3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Brianna Meddaoui, Bianca C Iddiols, Erin A Kaufman
{"title":"The Controllability of Suicidal Thoughts (CoST) Scale: Development, factor structure, and initial validation.","authors":"Brianna Meddaoui,&nbsp;Bianca C Iddiols,&nbsp;Erin A Kaufman","doi":"10.1037/pas0001271","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Suicidal ideation (SI) is common, harmful, and distressing. Prior research suggests a person's sense of perceived control over their suicidal thoughts may be important for understanding risk level. However, no measurement tool currently exists to capture this experience. The present study seeks to establish a brief self-report instrument to assess the degree of perceived control an individual has over their suicidal thoughts. We conducted two studies to test the psychometric properties and factor structure of the Controllability of Suicidal Thoughts (CoST) scale. Two online convenience samples were used; participants were recruited via Prolific (Study 1; <i>n</i> = 244, <i>M</i><sub>age</sub> = 29.19, female = 51.2%, White = 68.9%, non-Hispanic = 92.6%, heterosexual = 48.0%) and via online webpages and forums (Study 2; <i>n</i> = 206, <i>Mdn</i><sub>age</sub> = 25-30 years, female = 56.5%, White = 55.2%, non-Hispanic = 84.4%, heterosexual = 51.3%). Exploratory factor analyses (Study 1) yielded a two-factor structure for the CoST, which was replicated in the second sample. CoST scores were associated with various constructs related to suicidality (i.e., SI severity, self-efficacy to avoid suicidal action, suicide-related coping, hopelessness), locus of control, coping, and emotion dysregulation. Results indicate the CoST has high internal consistency (ω = .92), good test-retest reliability, and preliminary evidence of predictive and construct validities. The CoST shows promise for future research applications, aids our understanding of suicide-related cognitions, and may predict important suicide-related outcomes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20770,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Assessment","volume":"35 10","pages":"880-887"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001271","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Suicidal ideation (SI) is common, harmful, and distressing. Prior research suggests a person's sense of perceived control over their suicidal thoughts may be important for understanding risk level. However, no measurement tool currently exists to capture this experience. The present study seeks to establish a brief self-report instrument to assess the degree of perceived control an individual has over their suicidal thoughts. We conducted two studies to test the psychometric properties and factor structure of the Controllability of Suicidal Thoughts (CoST) scale. Two online convenience samples were used; participants were recruited via Prolific (Study 1; n = 244, Mage = 29.19, female = 51.2%, White = 68.9%, non-Hispanic = 92.6%, heterosexual = 48.0%) and via online webpages and forums (Study 2; n = 206, Mdnage = 25-30 years, female = 56.5%, White = 55.2%, non-Hispanic = 84.4%, heterosexual = 51.3%). Exploratory factor analyses (Study 1) yielded a two-factor structure for the CoST, which was replicated in the second sample. CoST scores were associated with various constructs related to suicidality (i.e., SI severity, self-efficacy to avoid suicidal action, suicide-related coping, hopelessness), locus of control, coping, and emotion dysregulation. Results indicate the CoST has high internal consistency (ω = .92), good test-retest reliability, and preliminary evidence of predictive and construct validities. The CoST shows promise for future research applications, aids our understanding of suicide-related cognitions, and may predict important suicide-related outcomes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

自杀念头的可控性量表:发展、因素结构和初步验证。
自杀意念(SI)是常见的、有害的和令人痛苦的。先前的研究表明,一个人对自杀想法的控制感可能对了解风险水平很重要。然而,目前还没有任何测量工具来捕捉这种体验。本研究试图建立一个简短的自我报告工具,以评估个人对自杀想法的控制程度。我们进行了两项研究来测试自杀思想可控性量表的心理测量特性和因素结构。使用了两个在线便利样本;参与者是通过Prolific(研究1;n=244,Mage=29.19,女性=51.2%,白人=68.9%,非西班牙裔=92.6%,异性恋=48.0%)和在线网页和论坛(研究2;n=206,Mdnage=25-30岁,女性=56.5%,白人=55.2%,非西班牙裔=84.4%,异性恋=51.3%)招募的。探索性因素分析(研究1)得出了CoST的双因素结构,其在第二个样品中被复制。CoST评分与自杀相关的各种结构(即SI严重程度、避免自杀行为的自我效能感、自杀相关的应对、绝望)、控制点、应对和情绪失调有关。结果表明,CoST具有较高的内部一致性(ω=.92),良好的重测可靠性,以及预测和构建有效性的初步证据。CoST显示出未来研究应用的前景,有助于我们理解自杀相关认知,并可能预测重要的自杀相关结果。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
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
Psychological Assessment
Psychological Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
167
期刊介绍: Psychological Assessment is concerned mainly with empirical research on measurement and evaluation relevant to the broad field of clinical psychology. Submissions are welcome in the areas of assessment processes and methods. Included are - clinical judgment and the application of decision-making models - paradigms derived from basic psychological research in cognition, personality–social psychology, and biological psychology - development, validation, and application of assessment instruments, observational methods, and interviews
×
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