How the Timing of a Patient’s Self-ratings of Suicidality and the Relationship to the Recipient Affect Patient Responses: A Case Study
by Jennifer M. Giddens and David V. Sheehan, MD, MBA
J. Giddens is Co-founder of the Tampa Center for Research on Suicidality, Tampa, Florida; and Dr. Sheehan is Distinguished University Health Professor Emeritus, University of South Florida College of Medicine, Tampa, Florida.
Objective: This case study explores to what extent, if any, a subject’s reporting varies depending upon whom the subject believes will view the data and the relationship the subject has with the reviewer. It also explores the variance in reporting if several days pass between the timeframe in question and the time of data collection.
Method: The subject answered three suicidality-related scales (the Sheehan-Suicidality Tracking Scale, the Suicidality Modifiers, and the Alphs Dichotomous Impulsivity and Hopelessness Two Questions) for 24 distinct timeframes. The scales were rated three different ways for each timeframe. The first was for only the patient. Immediately afterward, the scales were answered for the subject’s therapist. A few days later, the scales were again answered by the patient, but only for the patient. The three different interviews for the same timeframe were compared to investigate any deviations.
Results: This case study found clinically relevant deviations between the three ratings completed for the same timeframe.
Conclusion: This case study illustrates that a patient’s reporting of his or her symptoms of suicidality using a patient-rated scale can vary depending upon the context, distance from timeframe in question, and the patient’s relationship with the reviewer of the data.
Keywords: Suicide, suicide assessment, suicidality, patient-rated suicide assessment, S-STS, Suicidality Modifiers Scale
How to Cite this Article
Giddens, J. M., & Sheehan, D. V. (2014). How the Timing of a Patient’s Self-ratings of Suicidality and the Relationship to the Recipient Affect Patient Responses: A Case Study. Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience, 11(9-10), 191. PDF: http://innovationscns.epubxp.com/i/425963/190