ArticleClinical psychology & psychotherapy
Psychometric Evaluation of the Revised Suicide Crisis Inventory (SCI-2) in Germany: Factor Structure, Reliability, and Validity in an Online and Outpatient Sample.
Article in Clinical psychology & psychotherapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Psychometric Evaluation of the Revised Suicide Crisis Inventory (SCI-2) in Germany: Factor Structure, Reliability, and Validity in an Online and Outpatient Sample.Clinical psychology & psychotherapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe suicide crisis syndrome (SCS) is considered a cognitive and affective state preceding a suicide attempt. Previous studies have demonstrated its predictive validity and have shown it to be a uniform disorder entity in various countries worldwide; however, research in Europe remains limited. The aim of this study was therefore to contribute to a cross-cultural perspective on the SCS and to examine its factor structure, reliability, and validity in Germany.
methodsData of N = 1157 participants were collected between October 2022 and December 2024 cross-sectionally from a German adult outpatient sample (n = 586; 65% female; age: M[SD] = 36.31[12.80], range: 18-68) and a German adult online sample (n = 571; 74% female; age: M[SD] = 24.69[7.20], range: 18-67). Participants completed the German version of the revised 61-item Suicide Crisis Inventory (SCI-2-G) and other instruments (e.g., SIBS, BDI-II, and DASS) to measure convergent and concurrent criterion validity. Statistical analyses included confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) to confirm the proposed factors (entrapment, affective disturbance, loss of cognitive control, hyperarousal, and social withdrawal).
resultsThe SCI-2-G total score demonstrated excellent internal consistency, good convergent, and moderate concurrent criterion validity in relation to stress, depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and lifetime suicide attempts. The CFA showed good model fit for the online sample and adequate-to-good fit for the outpatient sample, with the five-factor model consistently outperforming the one-factor model.
conclusionCFA yielded adequate-to-good model fit depending on the sample. Analyses indicate that the SCI-2 is a valid measurement tool in Germany. The five-factor solution is suggested to have higher clinical utility than a one-factor solution, as it reflects the current formulation of the proposed SCS diagnosis. Future studies should expand the cross-cultural perspective with longitudinal studies across diverse clinical and nonclinical samples. SUMMARY: First validation of the German revised version Suicide Crisis Inventory (SCI-2-G). Confirmatory factor analyses support the five-factor solution of the scale. Good scale properties for an online and outpatient sample in Germany.
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.