ArticleJournal of clinical psychology2025
The Reliability and Construct Validity of a Single-Item Assessment of Suicidal Ideation Among Patients With Mood and Anxiety Disorders.
Article in Journal of clinical psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Clinical Utility of the Interpersonal Hopelessness Scale Among Adults With Past-Year Suicide Ideation.Suicide & life-threatening behavior · 2026Article
- Suicidal Ideation in Adult Women: The Unique Roles of Binging, Purging, and Restricting.The International journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveSingle-item questionnaire assessments may be summarily dismissed by some, but it is unclear if this is warranted. We suggest here that the answer to that question depends on their reliability and construct validity. Reliability of a single-item index cannot be assessed via indices like coefficient alpha, but it can be addressed otherwise; construct validity can be assessed as it would be with any other quantitative index.
methodsIn 489 patients with mood and anxiety disorders, we examined the Beck Depression Inventory Item 9's (BDI-Item 9) test-retest coefficient, and its validity, in part via invariance analyses. More specifically regarding invariance analyses, we determined whether a covariance structure including a multi-item assessment of suicidal ideation was invariant with a similar structure using a single-item assessment of suicidal ideation instead.
resultsReasonably supportive evidence emerged for the reliability and construct validity of this specific one-item index.
conclusionsThe BDI-Item 9 can reliably assess suicidal ideation when data lack multi-item assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.