The factorial structure of the Suicide Intent Scale: A comparative study in clinical samples from 11 European regions

  • Elfi Antretter
  • , D. Dunkel
  • , C. Haring
  • , P. Corcoran
  • , D. De Leo
  • , S. Fekete
  • , K. Hawton
  • , A. J.F.M. Kerkhof
  • , J. Lönnqvist
  • , E. Salander Renberg
  • , A. Schmidtke
  • , K. Van Heeringen
  • , D. Wasserman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Although the Suicide Intent Scale (SIS) is a widely used instrument in research on suicidal behavior, comparative research on the latent structure of the SIS has been neglected. To determine whether a general factor model of the SIS is supported, alternative factor models of the SIS were evaluated comparatively in 11 clinical samples. The SIS was applied as part of a structured clinical interview to patients after an episode of non-fatal suicidal behavior. The samples were drawn from 11 study centers within the frame of the WHO/EURO multicenter study on suicidal behavior. Three different two-factor and two three-factor models of the SIS were examined in each sample using principal component analysis with orthogonal Procrustes rotation. The factorial structure of the 'subjective part' of the SIS (items 9-14) was strongly supported, whereas an acceptable model fit for the 'objective part' was not found. Possible future revisions of 'objective' SIS items may be worth consideration. As a limitation, the results of the study might not generalize to other samples that use different definitions of non-fatal suicidal behavior.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)63-79
Number of pages17
JournalInternational Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research
Volume17
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2008

Keywords

  • Factor analysis
  • Non-fatal suicidal behavior
  • Procrustes rotation
  • Suicide Intent Scale (SIS)
  • WHO/EURO multicenter study on suicidal behavior

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The factorial structure of the Suicide Intent Scale: A comparative study in clinical samples from 11 European regions'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this