Predicting the Transition From Suicidal Ideation to Suicide Attempt Among Sexual and Gender Minority Youths
Abstract
Objective:
Sexual and gender minority youths are more likely to consider, attempt, and die by suicide than are heterosexual and cisgender youths, yet little is known about how to predict future attempts or transitions from suicidal thoughts to behaviors. Additionally, adaptive measurement of psychopathology is a promising approach that may help characterize risk in this population. This study examined the validity of the Computerized Adaptive Test for Suicide Scale (CAT-SS) in predicting suicide attempts and the transition from suicidal ideation to attempt.
Methods:
The CAT-SS was administered to participants of two ongoing cohort studies of sexual and gender minority adolescents and young adults (N=1,006). Survival analyses examined longitudinal associations between CAT-SS scores and time to suicide attempt. Analyses were conducted for the full sample and stratified by those with and without a history of suicidal ideation, with comparisons between adaptive and static measures of depressive symptoms.
Results:
The CAT-SS predicted future suicide attempts in the overall sample (hazard ratio [HR]=1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.03–1.74). Among youths without a history of suicidal ideation, social support reduced the risk for attempts (HR=0.66, 95% CI=0.45–0.96). Among youths with a history of ideation, predictors of the transition from suicidal thoughts to attempts included baseline CAT-SS score (HR=1.51, 95% CI=1.06–2.15) and victimization (HR=2.48, 95% CI=1.10–5.59).
Conclusions:
Risk and protective factors for suicide attempts differed between youths with and without a history of suicidal thoughts. The CAT-SS had validity in predicting future risk of the sample overall and of youths with suicidal ideation.
Highlights
•
This study evaluated the ability of computerized adaptive tests to predict changes in suicide risk among 1,006 sexual and gender minority participants enrolled in two longitudinal cohort studies.
•
The Computerized Adaptive Test for Suicide Scale (CAT-SS) predicted suicide attempts and the transition from suicidal ideation to attempt.
•
Social support reduced the risk for suicide attempts among youths without a history of ideation, and victimization predicted the transition from suicidal ideation to attempt among youths with a history of suicidal ideation.
•
The CAT-SS had predictive validity when used among individuals belonging to sexual and gender minority populations and could predict transitions between suicidal thoughts and behaviors.
Youth suicide has increased in recent years, and preventing youth suicide is a global health priority (1–3). Available evidence indicates that sexual and gender minority youths (SGMY) are more likely to consider, attempt, and die by suicide, compared with heterosexual and cisgender youths (4–9). Because of a paucity of longitudinal research, little is known about why some SGMY who think about suicide make an attempt, whereas most do not (10, 11). Despite the persistence of these disparities, there are no well-established interventions tailored for this population (12, 13). Prospective research is urgently needed to develop strategies to predict and prevent suicide attempts among SGMY (14, 15).
Several recent advances inform future directions in establishing an evidence base for addressing suicidality among SGMY. First, developing methods for screening—the proactive identification of youths experiencing suicidality—is crucial (16, 17). Correlates of suicidal behavior are more prevalent among SGMY, which may lead to different overall risk profiles (18–21). Novel, electronically delivered health interventions to address SGM health disparities have good efficacy, feasibility, and acceptability (22, 23). Evaluating available screening tools, particularly those that can be delivered electronically, in this population will inform efforts to identify SGMY at high suicide risk and facilitate linkage to intervention.
Second, ascertaining factors that predict transitions from suicidal thoughts to behaviors can clarify targets for intervention (24, 25). Predicting suicide attempts among youths is challenging, and this is especially the case for SGMY (4, 26). However, research on youth suicide risk screening indicates that presence of a combination of symptoms of mood disorders and alcohol and drug use disorders effectively identifies youths at risk and may be informative in predicting SGMY risk (17). Additionally, the ability to identify within-person factors associated with transitions in risk can inform our understanding of the naturalistic course of suicidality, effectiveness of screening strategies, and individualization of interventions (27, 28). To date, only three published studies have examined suicidality longitudinally among SGMY (29–31). Nevertheless, these studies consistently found that attempt history and suicidal ideation severity were better predictors than previously examined SGM-specific factors (e.g., child gender nonconformity). Thus, characterizing suicidality specifically is likely to aid in predicting risk transitions. Additionally, interpersonal factors, such as SGM-related victimization and perceived social support, have been found to be associated with retrospective reports of suicide attempt history and prospectively with changes in suicidal thoughts (29, 32). As such, their role in suicide risk transitions should be explored further.
Third, computerized adaptive testing (CAT) provides advantages over standard approaches to mental health assessments (33, 34). For instance, structured interviews have good predictive validity but are subject to clinical judgment and require administration by trained interviewers (35). Self-report measures can be administered in a wide range of settings but have modest predictive validity (36–38). Both methods often require the administration of a large number of items from static item banks and screening batteries. In contrast, CAT allows the number and sequencing of items to vary as a function of participants’ previous responses, facilitating personalized assessment with a high degree of accuracy for a range of mental health conditions, including major depressive disorder (39, 40). The recently developed Computerized Adaptive Test for Suicide Scale (CAT-SS) has demonstrated convergent validity with structured clinical interviews and may improve risk formulation (41).
The aim of this study was twofold. First, we sought to identify risk and protective factors for transitions from suicidal thoughts to behavior among SGMY. Second, we examined the predictive validity of CAT-SS when the analysis controlled for other risk and protective factors.
Methods
Sample
Data were drawn from two ongoing accelerated cohort studies of SGMY residing in Chicago, with youths assigned male at birth (RADAR project; current enrollment, N=1,153) and female at birth (FAB400 study; current enrollment N=488). The eligibility criteria and recruitment procedures of these studies have been described previously (42, 43). Informed consent was obtained from all participants at enrollment. All study procedures were approved by the institutional review boards at Northwestern University and University of Chicago.
Of the 1,641 participants enrolled in these studies, 1,072 completed CAT measures at one visit between January 2018 and July 2018 (subsequently referred to as baseline). Most of the 1,072 participants completed at least one follow-up visit (N=1,006, 94%). The number of follow-up visits after CAT administration varied across participants (median of three visits, range 1–4 visits). Participants without follow-up data did not differ from the analytic sample in age, race-ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. Suicidal ideation and suicide attempts were measured at all follow-up visits conducted over 16.5±3.7 months (range 6–24 months). The mean±SD age of the 1,006 participants was 20.7±3.2 years, with most identifying as cisgender (N=841, 84%) and with a nonmonosexual sexual orientation (N=522, 52%). The racial-ethnic distribution was as follows: Black (N=354, 35%), Latinx (N=294, 29%), White (N=237, 24%), and other (N=121, 12%).
Measures
Suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.
Participants completed items from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey to assess suicidality. Suicidal ideation was assessed with the question, “During the past 6 months, did you ever seriously consider attempting suicide?” Attempts were assessed with the question, “During the past 6 months, how many times did you actually attempt suicide?” Response options were measured on an ordinal frequency scale: zero times, one time, two or three times, four or five times, and six or more times. These items have good convergent and discriminant validity and test-retest reliability (44, 45).
CAT-SS.
Participants completed the CAT-SS as a measure of recent suicide risk at one visit. The CAT-SS was developed by using methods of multidimensional item response theory in a sample of psychiatric patients and then validated in a sample of emergency department patients. The item bank of 111 items was developed from an initial pool of 1,008 items assessing the domains of anxiety, depression, and mania (including 11 items directly assessing suicidal ideation). With an item bank that assesses multiple domains, participants completing the CAT-SS receive prompts that vary in how directly the items inquire about suicide-related distress. Examples of suicidality-specific items include, “My life lacked meaning and purpose,” and “Did you think about taking your own life?” With a mean of 10 adaptively administered items, the CAT-SS can accurately measure suicide risk in approximately 2 minutes. Scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe suicide risk. The CAT-SS has demonstrated convergent validity with clinician-administered assessment of suicidality, the Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale (41, 46).
Computerized Adaptive Diagnostic Test for Major Depressive Disorder (CAD-MDD).
The CAD-MDD is a computerized adaptive test used to screen for the presence of major depressive disorder (39). Respondents are presented with questions drawn from a bank of 88 items that map onto domains assessed in the diagnosis of major depressive disorder: negative affect, anhedonia, sleep disturbance, weight fluctuation, psychomotor changes, fatigue, negative self-perception, concentration impairment, and suicidality. The sensitivity and specificity of the CAD-MDD to detect major depressive disorder (based on the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5) are 0.95 and 0.87, respectively.
Computerized Adaptive Test–Depression Inventory (CAT-DI).
The CAT-DI provides an assessment of depression symptom severity on a scale of 0–100 (40). Items are drawn from a bank of 389 items assessing domains of major depressive disorder. In previous studies, the CAT-DI has had convergent validity with clinician-administered structured diagnostic interviews, with a sensitivity of 0.92 and specificity of 0.88, and convergent validity with the clinician-rated Hamilton Depression Rating Scale of r=0.75.
Depressive symptoms.
Depression was measured with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Depression–Short Form 8A (47). This scale measures depressive symptoms in the past week (e.g., negative affect and worthlessness). Responses are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 1, never, to 5, always). Measure reliability is high in both cohorts (RADAR, α=0.95; FAB 400, α=0.94) (48).
Alcohol use.
The Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) is a 10-item tool that assesses alcohol consumption and related impairment (49). The AUDIT yields a summary score (ranging from 0 to 40), with higher scores indicating greater consumption and functional impairment. Consistent with previous studies of suicide risk in this age group, scores of ≥8 were classified as high-risk alcohol use (50, 51). This measure has high reliability in these cohorts (RADAR, α=0.81; FAB 400, α=0.81) (48).
SGM-based victimization.
A 10-item measure was used to assess SGM-related victimization (52). Participants are asked to report on a 4-point scale (ranging from 0, never, to 3, three or more times) how often they experienced verbal and physical threats and assaults in the past 6 months because they “are, or were thought to be, gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.” Measurement reliability is high in these cohorts (RADAR, α=0.86; FAB 400, α=0.87) (48).
Social support.
Participants completed the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (53). The measure assesses the extent to which participants receive support from family, friends, and significant others. Respondents rate agreement with items (e.g., “My family really tries to help me”) on a 7-point Likert scale (ranging from 1, very strongly disagree, to 7, very strongly agree). The total support subscale was used in this study and has high reliability (RADAR, α=0.88; FAB 400, α=0.90) (48).
Statistical Analysis
Primary analyses examined the extent to which baseline characteristics and baseline CAT-SS scores predicted suicide attempts in the overall sample and transitions from suicidal ideation to subsequent attempt. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to examine time to suicide attempt at follow-up in the overall sample and in models stratified by baseline history of suicidal ideation. Associations between baseline factors and suicide attempts were examined in bivariate models (i.e., single predictor) and multivariate models (i.e., all predictors). A positive screen for depression on the CAD-MDD was included as a dichotomous variable (positive or negative screen). CAT-SS scores were divided by 10 to increase interpretability in terms of a unit change on a 10-point scale and analyzed as a continuous measure.
We also conducted post hoc exploratory analyses to assess whether CAT-SS scores could be used to stratify participants into low- and high-risk groups. To test this, we used a log-rank test to determine whether a score ≥5 (≥50 on the original 100-point scale) distinguished participants with a higher risk for an attempt. For participants who reported multiple attempts, data were censored after the first attempt. Gender minority status, nonmonosexual sexual orientation, and race-ethnicity were examined as potential covariates but did not alter study findings. In sensitivity analyses, alternative models were examined, with depressive symptoms measured with the CAT-DI and the PROMIS-8 (see tables in an online supplement to this article). Analyses were conducted with Stata, version 16.
Results
Baseline Characteristics
The characteristics of the overall sample and of suicide ideators and nonideators at the time of CAT-SS administration are presented in Table 1. At baseline, 258 participants (26%) reported a history of suicidal ideation, and 73 participants (7%) reported a history of suicide attempt. Suicide ideators were more likely than nonideators to report being assigned female at birth, gender minority status, and nonmonosexual sexual orientation and were less likely to report racial-ethnic minority status. Compared with nonideators, ideators reported more frequent victimization, more severe depressive symptoms, and less social support and had higher CAT-SS scores.
| All | Ideators | Nonideators | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (N=1,006) | (N=258) | (N=748) | Test | ||||
| Characteristic | N | % | N | % | N | % | statistica |
| Assigned female at birth | 358 | 36 | 123 | 48 | 235 | 31 | χ2=22.1*** |
| Gender minority | 165 | 16 | 66 | 26 | 99 | 13 | χ2=21.3*** |
| Nonmonosexual sexual orientation | 515 | 51 | 155 | 60 | 360 | 48 | χ2=11.0** |
| Age (M±SD) | 20.7±3.2 | 19.8±2.7 | 21.0±3.3 | t=5.8* | |||
| Racial-ethnic minority group | 769 | 76 | 184 | 71 | 585 | 78 | χ2=5.1* |
| Black | 354 | 35 | 75 | 29 | 279 | 37 | |
| Latinx | 294 | 29 | 74 | 29 | 220 | 29 | |
| White | 237 | 24 | 74 | 29 | 163 | 22 | |
| Other | 121 | 12 | 35 | 14 | 86 | 12 | |
| Suicide plan | 143 | 14 | 127 | 49 | 16 | 2 | χ2=348.8*** |
| Suicide attempt | 73 | 7 | 57 | 22 | 16 | 2 | χ2=113.5*** |
| CAT-SS (M±SD)b | 2.4±1.8 | 3.3±2.0 | 2.0±1.5 | χ2=111.9*** | |||
| CAD-MDD positivec | 315 | 31 | 133 | 52 | 182 | 24 | χ2=66.1*** |
| CAT-DI (M±SD)d | 3.2±2.2 | 4.3±2.2 | 2.8±2.0 | t=100.6*** | |||
| PROMIS-8 (M±SD)e | 14.6±7.4 | 18.6±8.6 | 13.2±6.3 | t=116.4*** | |||
| AUDIT (M±SD)f | 4.5±4.3 | 5.5±4.8 | 4.1±4.0 | t=19.0*** | |||
| Heavy alcohol usef | 183 | 18 | 66 | 26 | 117 | 16 | χ2=12.7*** |
| Victimization (M±SD)g | .1 ±.3 | .2 ±.4 | .1 ±.2 | t=35.5*** | |||
| Social support (M±SD)h | 5.1±1.3 | 4.8±1.3 | 5.2±1.3 | t=11.1** | |||
a
Comparisons were made between ideators and nonideators with chi-square tests (df=1, N=1,006) and t tests for continuous variables (df=1,004).
b
CAT-SS, Computerized Adaptive Test for Suicide Scale. Higher scores indicate more severe suicidality. The CAT-SS has been rescaled by dividing scores by 10 for a score range of 0–10.
c
CAD-MDD, Computerized Adaptive Diagnostic Test for Major Depressive Disorder. This test yields a binary outcome to indicate a positive or negative result for major depressive disorder.
d
CAT-DI, Computerized Adaptive Test–Depression Inventory. Higher scores indicate more severe depressive symptoms. The CAT-DI has been rescaled by dividing scores by 10 for a score range of 0–10.
e
PROMIS-8, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Depression–Short Form 8A. Possible scores range from 8 to 40, with higher scores indicating more severe depressive symptoms.
f
AUDIT, Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. Higher scores indicate more severe symptoms of alcohol use disorder, with scores ≥8 indicating heavy alcohol use.
g
Victimization related to being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. Possible scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating higher frequencies of victimization.
h
As measured by the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Possible scores range from 1 to 7, with higher scores indicating greater perceived social support.
*
p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.
Longitudinal Analysis
At follow-up, 32 of the 1,006 participants reported at least one suicide attempt, with half of attempts occurring in the 6 months after the CAT-SS administration at baseline. Bivariate associations between study variables and prospectively observed suicide attempts are detailed in Table 2. In the overall sample, all variables except alcohol use predicted suicide attempts. Among nonideators, social support attenuated the risk for a suicide attempt. Among ideators, victimization increased the risk for suicide attempt. A CAT-SS score of ≥5 was statistically significantly associated with time to suicide attempt (log-rank test χ2=14.94, df=1, p<0.001; Figure 1). This relationship was attenuated in predicting the transition from suicidal ideation to attempt (log-rank test χ2=2.86, df=1, p=0.09; Figure 2).
FIGURE 1. Kaplan-Meier survival probabilities (time to first suicide attempt) among sexual and gender minority youths, by scores on the Computerized Adaptive Test for Suicide Scale (CAT-SS) (N=1,006)a
a Scores of ≥5 indicate higher risk for suicide attempt.
FIGURE 2. Kaplan-Meier survival probabilities (time to first suicide attempt) for suicide ideators among sexual and gender minority youths, by scores on the Computerized Adaptive Test for Suicide Scale (CAT-SS) (N=258)a
a Scores of ≥5 indicate higher risk for suicide attempt.
| Total | Ideators | Nonideators | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (N=1,006) | (N=258) | (N=748) | ||||
| Variable | HR | 95% CI | HR | 95% CI | HR | 95% CI |
| CAT-SSa | 1.32** | 1.10–1.57 | 1.20 | .96–1.51 | 1.13 | .81–1.56 |
| CAD-MDD positiveb | 1.91† | .95–3.84 | 1.00 | .40–2.47 | 1.95 | .64–5.97 |
| CAT-DIc | 1.19* | 1.02–1.39 | 1.10 | .89–1.35 | 1.05 | .80–1.37 |
| PROMIS-8d | 1.05* | 1.01–1.09 | 1.02 | .97–1.07 | 1.04 | .97–1.12 |
| Heavy alcohol usee | 1.56 | .70–3.47 | 1.85 | .73–4.72 | .46 | .06–3.51 |
| Victimizationf | 2.67** | 1.41–5.04 | 2.29* | 1.11–4.72 | 1.67 | .27–10.53 |
| Social supportg | .80† | .63–1.03 | 1.03 | .73–1.46 | .66* | .45–.95 |
a
CAT-SS, Computerized Adaptive Test for Suicide Scale.
b
CAD-MDD, Computerized Adaptive Diagnostic Test for Major Depressive Disorder. This test yields a binary outcome to indicate a positive or negative screen for major depressive disorder. The reference group comprised those with a negative screen.
c
CAT-DI, Computerized Adaptive Test–Depression Inventory.
d
PROMIS-8, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Depression–Short Form 8A.
e
A dichotomous indicator for a score ≥8 on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. The reference group comprised those with a score ≤7.
f
Victimization related to being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.
g
As measured by the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support.
*
p<0.05, **p<0.01.
†
p<0.10.
In multivariate analyses, key predictors within the overall sample included CAT-SS score and victimization (Table 3). Among nonideators, social support was a protective factor for suicide attempts. For suicide ideators, CAT-SS score and victimization predicted transition to suicide attempt. The CAT-SS predicted suicide attempts in the overall sample (hazard ratio [HR]=1.34, p<0.05; see Table 3). For the CAT-SS, this represents a 34% increase in risk for a suicide attempt for each 10-point change. Among ideators, the CAT-SS also predicted suicide attempts (HR=1.51, p<0.05), representing a 51% increase in risk for transition from suicidal ideation to attempt for a 10-point change in score—or up to a fivefold increase in transition risk across the range of the scale. A positive screen for major depressive disorder on the CAD-MDD item was not associated with suicide attempts in the overall sample or among nonideators, and a modest but nonsignificant association was observed for ideators (HR=0.29, p=0.08). In sensitivity analyses, we examined multivariate models with alternative measures of depressive symptoms. The CAT-DI and PROMIS-8 were not significantly associated with suicide attempts (see tables in online supplement).
| Total | Ideators | Nonideators | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (N=1,006) | (N=258) | (N=748) | ||||
| Variable | HR | 95% CI | HR | 95% CI | HR | 95% CI |
| CAT-SSa | 1.34* | 1.03–1.74 | 1.51* | 1.06–2.15 | .91 | .57–1.45 |
| CAD-MDD positiveb | .71 | .25–1.98 | .29† | .07–1.18 | 2.39 | .45–12.69 |
| Heavy alcohol usec | 1.21 | .54–2.75 | 1.53 | .59–3.99 | .45 | .06–3.47 |
| Victimizationd | 2.37* | 1.17–4.82 | 2.48* | 1.10–5.59 | 1.39 | .23–8.37 |
| Social supporte | .87 | .67–1.14 | 1.12 | .78–1.62 | .66* | .45–.96 |
a
CAT-SS, Computerized Adaptive Test for Suicide Scale.
b
CAD-MDD, Computerized Adaptive Diagnostic Test for Major Depressive Disorder. This test yields a binary outcome to indicate a positive or negative screen for major depressive disorder. The reference group comprised those with a negative screen.
c
A dichotomous indicator for a score ≥8 on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. The reference group comprised those with a score ≤7.
d
Victimization related to being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.
e
As measured by the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support.
*
p<0.05, **p<0.01.
†
p<0.10.
Discussion
This study examined the predictive validity of the CAT-SS for future suicide attempts, for the transition from suicidal ideation to attempts in a large sample of SGMY, and in combination with adaptive and static measures of depressive symptoms. Variables evaluated included self-report measures of risk and protective factors, as well as a computer-adaptive measure of suicidality, the CAT-SS. This adaptive approach allowed for administered items to vary in the content, number, and order of presentation, potentially providing more tailored and dynamic assessments of suicide risk. Three key findings emerged. First, predictors of suicide attempts differed between youths with and without a history of suicidal ideation at baseline. Social support was associated with reduced risk among nonideators, whereas victimization predicted transition to attempts among ideators. Second, the CAT-SS had predictive validity as an individual predictor, as well as in combination with other factors, of suicide attempts and risk transitions in multivariate models. Third, the CAT-SS predicted suicide attempts regardless of the type of measure of depressive symptoms. Thus, the CAT-SS reliably predicted suicide attempts when examined alone or in combination with other risk and protective factors.
Several strengths of this study represent important contributions to the literature. This study included a large sample and a prospective design. To date, only three studies have examined longitudinal predictors of attempts among SGMY. Stratifying by suicidal ideation history revealed factors associated with both increased and reduced risk for attempts. As found in previous studies, heavy alcohol use did not predict suicide attempts. Similarly, the predictive effects of depressive symptoms were reduced after accounting for other risk and protective factors. In ancillary analyses, the CAD-MDD was associated with a somewhat higher (but nonsignificant) likelihood of suicide attempt in the overall sample when examined alone but a lower (also nonsignificant) likelihood of transitioning from suicidal ideation to attempt in multivariate models. This finding may reflect risk profile differences between youths with and without a history of suicidal ideation. A positive CAD-MDD screen in the overall sample may have indicated risk for any suicidality. Among youths with suicidal ideation, a positive CAD-MDD screen may reflect particular impairments that can reduce the likelihood of engaging in suicidal behavior (e.g., fatigue, sluggishness, and hypersomnia).
Moreover, the predictive validity of the CAT-SS is encouraging. The CAT-SS appeared to predict future suicide attempts—and beyond what is explained by having a history of suicidal ideation. Additionally, the adaptive means of administration and large item bank allowed for indirect assessment of suicidality. This aspect is a notable advantage, because a direct assessment could underestimate risk for individuals who may have risk that fluctuates over time and for individuals who tend to underreport suicidal thoughts. CAT-SS assessments appear to improve the accuracy of prediction of future suicide attempts, which opens the door to large-scale suicide prevention. Online health interventions for SGMY are feasible and efficacious (22, 23). As such, the availability of computerized evidence-based assessment of suicidality can aid in reaching larger numbers of SGMY.
This study’s findings should be interpreted with its limitations in mind. First, the sample was drawn from two cohort studies based in Chicago. Future research should examine the extent to which these findings can be replicated in more broadly representative samples. Second, the incidence of suicide attempts in this sample during the follow-up period may have limited statistical power to detect small effects. Because the HRs had relatively modest sizes (i.e., <2), it is important to treat these findings as preliminary. Administration of the CAT-SS in larger, high-risk samples would provide more definitive tests of the clinical utility of using adaptive assessment. Confidence intervals for some effects were wide (e.g., CAD-MDD and victimization), reflecting the relatively small number of attempts, and may become narrower in studies that include higher-risk participants. Studies with longer follow-up periods may also reveal other relevant predictors of transitions from ideation to attempts.
Third, we assessed most risk and protective factors with static self-report measures. Results of this and other studies have indicated the incremental utility of adaptive measures. Using CAT methods to characterize other mental health domains, such as anxiety, posttraumatic stress symptoms, psychosis, and substance use, may bolster prediction. Additionally, suicide attempts were measured with items from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System surveys, which may underestimate risk. Use of other validated measures would provide a more comprehensive assessment of suicidal behavior as an outcome. Future research on the CAT-SS could compare its predictive validity with those of other standardized measures, such as the clinician-administered Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale (46). Future studies should explore more longitudinally intensive suicide assessments. The adaptive nature of the CAT-SS and the fact that all the same questions are not repeatedly administered are advantages that could facilitate highly sensitive and precise ecological momentary assessments (e.g., daily or weekly assessments), which are now possible.
Conclusions
The results of this study represent important extensions of previous research and suggest directions for future work. This study is the first to conduct a prospective examination of transitions from suicidal ideation to attempts among SGMY and demonstrates the predictive validity of the CAT-SS. Longitudinal risk and protective factors have been difficult to identify, but our results suggest that the salience of factors may differ for youths with a history of suicidal thoughts. In addition, adaptive testing methods exhibited predictive validity and should be considered for incorporation into screening and intervention efforts.
Supplementary Material
File (appi.ps.202000497.ds001.pdf)
- View/Download
- 96.50 KB
References
1.
Bridge JA, Greenhouse JB, Weldon AH, et al: Suicide trends among youths aged 10 to 19 years in the United States, 1996–2005. JAMA 2008; 300:1025–1026
2.
Ruch DA, Sheftall AH, Schlagbaum P, et al: Trends in suicide among youth aged 10 to 19 years in the United States, 1975 to 2016. JAMA Netw Open 2019; 2:e193886
3.
Glenn CR, Kleiman EM, Kellerman J, et al: Annual research review: a meta-analytic review of worldwide suicide rates in adolescents. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2020; 61:294–308
4.
Miranda-Mendizábal A, Castellví P, Parés-Badell O, et al: Sexual orientation and suicidal behaviour in adolescents and young adults: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry 2017; 211:77–87
5.
Ream GL: What’s unique about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth and young adult suicides? Findings from the National Violent Death Reporting System. J Adolesc Health 2019; 64:602–607
6.
Valentine SE, Shipherd JC: A systematic review of social stress and mental health among transgender and gender non-conforming people in the United States. Clin Psychol Rev 2018; 66:24–38
7.
Björkenstam C, Andersson G, Dalman C, et al: Suicide in married couples in Sweden: is the risk greater in same-sex couples? Eur J Epidemiol 2016; 31:685–690
8.
King CA, Grupp-Phelan J, Brent D, et al: Predicting 3-month risk for adolescent suicide attempts among pediatric emergency department patients. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2019; 60:1055–1064
9.
Raifman J, Charlton BM, Arrington-Sanders R, et al: Sexual orientation and suicide attempt disparities among US adolescents: 2009–2017. Pediatrics 2020; 145:e20191658
10.
Haas AP, Eliason M, Mays VM, et al: Suicide and suicide risk in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations: review and recommendations. J Homosex 2011; 58:10–51
11.
Cha CB, Tezanos KM, Peros OM, et al: Accounting for diversity in suicide research: sampling and sample reporting practices in the United States. Suicide Life Threat Behav 2018; 48:131–139
12.
Coulter RWS, Egan JE, Kinsky S, et al: Mental health, drug, and violence interventions for sexual/gender minorities: a systematic review. Pediatrics 2019; 144:e20183367
13.
Glenn CR, Franklin JC, Nock MK: Evidence-based psychosocial treatments for self-injurious thoughts and behaviors in youth. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol 2015; 44:1–29
14.
Mustanski B: Future directions in research on sexual minority adolescent mental, behavioral, and sexual health. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol 2015; 44:204–219
15.
Wolford-Clevenger C, Frantell K, Smith PN, et al: Correlates of suicide ideation and behaviors among transgender people: a systematic review guided by ideation-to-action theory. Clin Psychol Rev 2018; 63:93–105
16.
Babeva K, Hughes JL, Asarnow J: Emergency department screening for suicide and mental health risk. Curr Psychiatry Rep 2016; 18:100
17.
King CA, Arango A, Ewell Foster C: Emerging trends in adolescent suicide prevention research. Curr Opin Psychol 2018; 22:89–94
18.
White Hughto JM, Reisner SL, Pachankis JE: Transgender stigma and health: a critical review of stigma determinants, mechanisms, and interventions. Soc Sci Med 2015; 147:222–231
19.
Salway T, Ross LE, Fehr CP, et al: A systematic review and meta-analysis of disparities in the prevalence of suicide ideation and attempt among bisexual populations. Arch Sex Behav 2019; 48:89–111
20.
Talley AE, Gilbert PA, Mitchell J, et al: Addressing gaps on risk and resilience factors for alcohol use outcomes in sexual and gender minority populations. Drug Alcohol Rev 2016; 35:484–493
21.
Aromin RA Jr: Substance abuse prevention, assessment, and treatment for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. Pediatr Clin North Am 2016; 63:1057–1077
22.
Pachankis JE, Williams SL, Behari K, et al: Brief online interventions for LGBTQ young adult mental and behavioral health: a randomized controlled trial in a high-stigma, low-resource context. J Consult Clin Psychol 2020; 88:429–444
23.
Mustanski B, Parsons JT, Sullivan PS, et al: Biomedical and behavioral outcomes of Keep It Up!: an eHealth HIV prevention program RCT. Am J Prev Med 2018; 55:151–158
24.
Klonsky ED, Qiu T, Saffer BY: Recent advances in differentiating suicide attempters from suicide ideators. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2017; 30:15–20
25.
Mustanski B, Espelage DL: Why are we not closing the gap in suicide disparities for sexual minority youth? Pediatrics 2020; 145:e20194002
26.
Franklin JC, Ribeiro JD, Fox KR, et al: Risk factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviors: a meta-analysis of 50 years of research. Psychol Bull 2017; 143:187–232
27.
Klonsky ED, May AM: The three-step theory (3ST): a new theory of suicide rooted in the “ideation-to-action” framework. Int J Cogn Ther 2015; 8:114–129
28.
Mars B, Heron J, Klonsky ED, et al: Predictors of future suicide attempt among adolescents with suicidal thoughts or non-suicidal self-harm: a population-based birth cohort study. Lancet Psychiatry 2019; 6:327–337
29.
Mustanski B, Liu RT: A longitudinal study of predictors of suicide attempts among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. Arch Sex Behav 2013; 42:437–448
30.
Smith DM, Wang SB, Carter ML, et al: Longitudinal predictors of self-injurious thoughts and behaviors in sexual and gender minority adolescents. J Abnorm Psychol 2020; 129:114–121
31.
Berona J, Horwitz AG, Czyz EK, et al: Predicting suicidal behavior among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth receiving psychiatric emergency services. J Psychiatr Res 2020; 122:64–69
32.
Baams L, Grossman AH, Russell ST: Minority stress and mechanisms of risk for depression and suicidal ideation among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Dev Psychol 2015; 51:688–696
33.
Gibbons RD, Weiss DJ, Frank E, et al: Computerized adaptive diagnosis and testing of mental health disorders. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2016; 12:83–104
34.
Gibbons RD, deGruy FV: Without wasting a word: extreme improvements in efficiency and accuracy using computerized adaptive testing for mental health disorders (CAT-MH). Curr Psychiatry Rep 2019; 21:67
35.
Klonsky ED, May AM, Saffer BY: Suicide, suicide attempts, and suicidal ideation. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2016; 12:307–330
36.
Huth-Bocks AC, Kerr DCR, Ivey AZ, et al: Assessment of psychiatrically hospitalized suicidal adolescents: self-report instruments as predictors of suicidal thoughts and behavior. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2007; 46:387–395
37.
King CA, Jiang Q, Czyz EK, et al: Suicidal ideation of psychiatrically hospitalized adolescents has one-year predictive validity for suicide attempts in girls only. J Abnorm Child Psychol 2014; 42:467–477
38.
Large M, Myles N, Myles H, et al: Suicide risk assessment among psychiatric inpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of high-risk categories. Psychol Med 2018; 48:1119–1127
39.
Gibbons RD, Hooker G, Finkelman MD, et al: The Computerized Adaptive Diagnostic Test for Major Depressive Disorder (CAD-MDD): a screening tool for depression. J Clin Psychiatry 2013; 74:669–674
40.
Gibbons RD, Weiss DJ, Pilkonis PA, et al: Development of a computerized adaptive test for depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2012; 69:1104–1112
41.
Gibbons RD, Kupfer D, Frank E, et al: Development of a Computerized Adaptive Test Suicide Scale–the CAT-SS. J Clin Psychiatry 2017; 78:1376–1382
42.
Mustanski B, Morgan E, D’Aquila R, et al: Individual and network factors associated with racial disparities in HIV among young men who have sex with men: results from the RADAR cohort study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2019; 80:24–30
43.
Whitton SW, Dyar C, Mustanski B, et al: Intimate partner violence experiences of sexual and gender minority adolescents and young adults assigned female at birth. Psychol Women Q 2019; 43:232–249
44.
May A, Klonsky ED: Validity of suicidality items from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey in a high school sample. Assessment 2011; 18:379–381
45.
Brener ND, Collins JL, Kann L, et al: Reliability of the Youth Risk Behavior Survey Questionnaire. Am J Epidemiol 1995; 141:575–580
46.
Posner K, Brown GK, Stanley B, 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
47.
Pilkonis PA, Choi SW, Reise SP, et al: Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®): depression, anxiety, and anger. Assessment 2011; 18:263–283
48.
Newcomb ME, Hill R, Buehler K, et al: High burden of mental health problems, substance use, violence, and related psychosocial factors in transgender, non-binary, and gender diverse youth and young adults. Arch Sex Behav 2020; 49:645–659
49.
Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, et al: Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption–II. Addiction 1993; 88:791–804
50.
King CA, Eisenberg D, Zheng K, et al: Online suicide risk screening and intervention with college students: a pilot randomized controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol 2015; 83:630–636
51.
Kokotailo PK, Egan J, Gangnon R, et al: Validity of the alcohol use disorders identification test in college students. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2004; 28:914–920
52.
Mustanski B, Andrews R, Puckett JA: The effects of cumulative victimization on mental health among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adolescents and young adults. Am J Public Health 2016; 106:527–533
53.
Zimet GD, Powell SS, Farley GK, et al: Psychometric characteristics of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. J Pers Assess 1990; 55:610–617
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: 30 June 2020
Revision received: 9 December 2020
Revision received: 8 January 2021
Revision received: 21 January 2021
Accepted: 22 January 2021
Published online: 4 August 2021
Published in print: November 01, 2021
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
Dr. Gibbons is a founder of Adaptive Testing Technologies, which distributes the Computerized Adaptive Testing Mental Health (CAT-MH) suite of computerized tests. The terms of this arrangement have been reviewed and approved by the University of Chicago in accordance with its conflict-of-interest policies. The other authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).