Predictive Validity and Cutoff Scores of the Revised Suicide Crisis Inventory in Korean Adults: A One-Year Follow-Up Study

Gangmin Ma; Sungeun You

doi:10.30773/pi.2025.0109

Psychiatry Investig > Volume 22(11); 2025 > Article

Ma and You: Predictive Validity and Cutoff Scores of the Revised Suicide Crisis Inventory in Korean Adults: A One-Year Follow-Up Study

Original Article

Psychiatry Investigation 2025;22(11):1260-1266.

Published online: October 16, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2025.0109

Predictive Validity and Cutoff Scores of the Revised Suicide Crisis Inventory in Korean Adults: A One-Year Follow-Up Study

Gangmin Ma

, Sungeun You

Department of Psychology, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea

Correspondence: Sungeun You, PhD Department of Psychology, Chungbuk National University, 1 Chungdae-ro, Seowon-gu, Cheongju 28644, Republic of Korea Tel: +82-43-261-3612, Fax: +82-43-269-2188 E-mail: syou@chungbuk.ac.kr

Received April 1, 2025 Revised June 12, 2025 Accepted July 17, 2025

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to examine the predictive validity of the revised Suicide Crisis Inventory (SCI-2) and determine its optimal cutoff score.

Methods

Data from 662 community adults participating in a one-year follow-up study were analyzed. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was conducted to examine whether the SCI-2 could predict suicide attempts and ideation with intent at the follow-up and to determine the optimal cutoff score for identifying individuals at high risk for suicide.

Results

The SCI-2 demonstrated adequate predictive validity for suicide attempts and ideation with intent at the one-year follow-up. Based on Youden’s index and Runeson et al.’s criteria, a cutoff score of 102 was proposed as the threshold for high-risk groups.

Conclusion

The SCI-2, a measure of Suicide Crisis Syndrome, demonstrated predictive validity using longitudinal data. It is effective in identifying high-risk individuals in a community population. These findings highlight the SCI-2 as a valuable tool for early suicide risk detection and prevention.

Keywords: Suicide, Suicide attempt, Risk assessment, Suicide Crisis Inventory-2

INTRODUCTION

Common methods for assessing suicide risk rely on the evaluation of recent suicidal ideation and past attempt history. However, these approaches have limitations in identifying high-risk individuals who conceal their suicidal thoughts or intention for various reasons [1-3]. Moreover, the predictive value of a past history of suicidal behavior for future attempts is limited [4-6]. To address these limitations, Galynker et al. [7] proposed assessing Suicide Crisis Syndrome (SCS), which includes cognitive and emotional symptoms that emerge during an acute suicide crisis and does not rely on current suicidal thoughts or past behaviors. Galynker [8] proposed diagnostic criteria for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) system, including five symptom groups: frantic hopelessness/entrapment, affective disturbances, loss of cognitive control, hyperarousal, and social withdrawal. Among these, frantic hopelessness/entrapment is considered the core symptom, describing a cognitive state in which individuals feel unable to resolve their problems or endure their pain any longer [9,10].

To assess SCS, Galynker et al. [7] developed and validated the 48-item Suicide Crisis Inventory (SCI) in a study involving psychiatric inpatients in the United States. Subsequently, Bloch-Elkouby et al. [11] developed and validated the 61-item Revised Suicide Crisis Inventory (SCI-2) in a sample of inpatient and outpatient psychiatric patients. Initially, the SCI-2 was validated with psychiatric patients in the US [7,11-16]. More recently, the SCI-2 has also been validated in community samples in Eastern and Western countries, including South Korea [17], Russia [18], India [19], Taiwan [20], and Brazil [21].

Previous studies have shown that SCS predicts suicidal behavior in the near future [7,11-16,22]. SCS, as measured by the SCI, significantly predicted suicide attempt within 4 to 8 weeks following discharge [7] and within the next 1 month in psychiatric inpatients [13,14]. Barzilay et al. [12] reported that the SCI predicted suicide attempts in inpatient and outpatient psychiatric patients at one-month follow-up, while it did not predict suicidal thoughts. Similarly, the SCI-2 predicted suicide attempt and preparatory behaviors in psychiatric patients one month later, but not suicidal thoughts [11]. Taken together, SCS consistently predicted near-term suicide attempts in psychiatric patients, although its ability to predict future suicidal thoughts is unclear.

Park et al. [17] validated the SCI-2 in a Korean adult sample using cross-sectional data and confirmed the one- and five-factor structures of the SCI-2. Additionally, they identified an alternative four-factor structure that is also suitable for Korean: 1) hopelessness and overwhelming distress; 2) affective, cognitive, and physical disturbances; 3) extreme anxiety; and 4) social withdrawal. In this four-factor structure, the affective disturbances factor was integrated with the loss of cognitive control and hyperarousal factors. Interestingly, the extreme anxiety subscale was separated as an independent factor from the affective disturbances factor. Park et al. [17] reported that both five- and four-factor structures were valid and applicable to Korean adults. Yet, they did not examine predictive validity and cutoff scores to identify high-risk individuals. So far, one study examined cutoff scores in predicting prospective suicide attempts or preparatory acts among psychiatry patients at one-month follow-up [11]. However, it is unclear whether these cutoffs are applicable to community adults or individuals in other cultural contexts.

This study aimed to examine predictive validity of the SCI-2 and cutoff scores in identifying high-risk individuals in a community sample in South Korea. To address this goal, we used longitudinal data in which community adults were followed for one year. Based on previous studies, we hypothesized that the predictive validity of the SCI-2 would be good in predicting suicide attempts. We also examined the predictive value for suicidal ideation with intent of the SCI-2. To compare the predictive value of the SCI-2 with other common suicide risk indexes, we examined the predictive value of past history of suicidal ideation and attempts.

METHODS

Participants

This study used the data derived from a community-based longitudinal study in predicting suicide crisis in South Korea. Data was collected through an online survey targeting community adults aged 19 years and older from 2021 to 2023. This study utilized the 2nd and 3rd wave data collected in 2022 and 2023, in which the SCI-2 was measured. The research was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Chungbuk National University (CBNU202010-HR-0164).

A total of 837 participants were followed up for a year. Among them, 662 (79.09%) who continued to participate at one-year follow-up were included for the analysis. Demographic characteristics of the baseline sample are presented in Table 1. Group comparisons between participants who were followed up and dropped out indicated that gender (χ²=22.05, p<0.001) and marital status (χ²=15.36, p<0.001) significantly differ between the groups, in which men and married individuals are more likely to discontinue at the follow-up. No group differences were found for age, education level, living status, employment status. No significant differences in suicidal behaviors were found between participants who were followed up and those who dropped out (Table 1).

At the one-year follow-up, 9.97% (n=66) endorsed suicidal ideation with intent (Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale [C-SSRS] ≥4) and 2.42% (n=16) endorsed suicide attempts in the past year.

Measures

The SCI-2

The SCI-2 is a 61-item self-report measure of acute suicidal crisis syndrome [11]. The Korean version of the SCI-2 [17] was used for this study. The SCI-2 is composed of five factors [11,17]: entrapment (10 items), affective disturbance (18 items), loss of cognitive control (15 items), hyperarousal (13 items), and social withdrawal (5 items). In addition, an alternative four-factor structure of the SCI-2 identified in Korea comprises the following dimensions [17]: hopelessness and overwhelming distress (9 items), affective, cognitive, and physical disturbances (32 items), extreme anxiety (5 items), and social withdrawal (5 items). The SCI-2 assesses symptoms of the SCS using a 5-point Likert scale (0: not at all to 4: very much) with the score range of 0 to 244. In this study, we assessed the SCS within the past year, and SCI-2 scores at baseline (Wave 2) were used to predict prospective suicidal behaviors occurring between Wave 2 and 3. The internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s α) of the SCI-2 were reported as 0.98 for the total scale, ranging from 0.86 to 0.95 for the five-factor subscales and from 0.89 to 0.93 for the four-factor subscales [17]. In this study, the Cronbach’s α values at baseline were 0.98 for the total SCI-2 scale and 0.96, 0.94, 0.88, 0.95, and 0.92 for its five original subscales. For the alternative four-factor structure of the SCI-2, the Cronbach’s α values were 0.94, 0.98, 0.86, and 0.92, respectively.

The C-SSRS screen version

The C-SSRS screen version was used to assess the severity of suicidal ideation and behavior [23]. The C-SSRS screen version consists of five items that measure the severity of suicidal ideation and one item that assesses suicide attempts or preparatory behaviors. We used the C-SSRS screen version to measure the severity of suicidal ideation over the past year and assessed the occurrence of suicide attempts within the past year by asking, “Have you attempted suicide in the past year?” In this study, participants with a C-SSRS suicidal ideation severity score of 4 or higher were classified as the suicidal ideation with intent group [24].

Statistical analysis

We conducted receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses with the area under the curve (AUC) to examine the predictive validity of the SCI-2 and determine the cutoff score. Using ROC analysis, we examined the predictive validity of the SCI-2 and its factors, as well as lifetime or past-year suicide ideation and attempts, in predicting prospective suicidal ideation with intent or attempts at one-year follow-up. According to Muller et al. [25], an AUC below 0.7 indicates poor predictive accuracy; an AUC between 0.7 and 0.8 indicates fair accuracy; an AUC between 0.8 and 0.9 indicates good accuracy; and an AUC of 0.9 or above indicates excellent predictive accuracy. If the AUC was 0.7 or higher, the cutoff score for the SCI-2 was determined by considering predictive indices, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, and the Youden index (J=sensitivity+ specificity-1) [26]. We also considered guidelines for detecting suicide risk when determining the cutoff [27]. The guidelines suggest the following priorities: 1) a score with a sensitivity exceeding 80% and a specificity exceeding 50% [28]; 2) among scores with a specificity of 50% or higher, the one with the highest sensitivity; and 3) the score with the highest sensitivity. All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 25.0 (IBM Corp.).

RESULTS

Predictive validity of the SCI-2

As presented in Table 2 and Figure 1, the predictive validity of the SCI-2 for prospective suicidal ideation with intent and attempts at one-year follow-up was good, with AUCs of 0.800 and 0.803, respectively. Among five factors, affective disturbance had the highest predictive value for suicide attempts, with an AUC of 0.809, while the other factors demonstrated fair predictive validity. All five factors of the SCI-2 predicted prospective suicidal ideation with intent at a fair level. The alternative four factors of the SCI-2 also demonstrated fair to good predictive validity for prospective suicidal ideation with intent and suicide attempts, with the “affective, cognitive, and physical disturbances” factor showing the highest predictive value. Among suicidal indices based on past suicidal behaviors, only past-year suicide attempts demonstrated fair predictive validity (AUC=0.709) for prospective suicide attempts. The other indices predicted neither ideation nor attempts.

Optimal cutoff scores of the SCI-2

Using the results from ROC analysis, we examined optimal cutoff scores of the SCI-2 (61 items) for identifying individuals at high risk for suicidal ideation with intent and attempts (Supplementary Table 1). In predicting prospective suicide attempts, a score of 117 had the highest Youden index (0.558). Based on the criteria established by Runeson et al. [28], scores ranging from 80 to 120 met the criteria, exceeding a sensitivity of 0.80 and a specificity of 0.50. In predicting prospective suicidal ideation with intent, the highest Youden index (0.466) was observed for SCI-2 scores of 102, 106, and 109. Also, scores ranging from 75 to 106 met the Runeson et al.’s criteria, exceeding a sensitivity of 0.80 and a specificity of 0.50.

Among these potential cutoffs, scores between 80 and 102 had the highest sensitivity of 0.94 in predicting suicide attempts, with 102 having the highest Youden index for attempt and ideation with intent. Thus, a cutoff score of 102 on the SCI-2 was proposed as the optimal cutoff for identifying individuals at high risk of suicide.

DISCUSSION

Using one-year follow-up data, this study examined predictive validity of the SCI-2 and identified an optimal cutoff score for assessing future suicide risk. Overall, the SCI-2 proved to be an effective tool for predicting prospective suicide attempts among community-dwelling adults in Korea. A cutoff score of 102 was proposed as the threshold for identifying high-risk groups.

The SCI-2 demonstrated good predictive value in this study, with an AUC of 0.80 for both prospective suicide attempts and ideation with intent. These results were comparable to, or slightly higher than, those from previous studies, where the predictive power of the SCI for future suicide attempts ranged from fair to moderate, with AUCs of 0.73 to 0.78 [7,12]. While the predictive validity of the SCI-2 for suicidal ideation with intent was good, with an AUC of 0.80 in this study, previous research has reported inconsistent findings. This discrepancy may stem from differences in how suicidal ideation groups are classified. Most prior studies [11,12] used a cutoff score of 1 (wish to be dead) or 2 (non-specific active suicidal ideation) on the C-SSRS suicidal ideation severity scale, whereas we used a more stringent cutoff of 4 (active suicidal ideation with some intent to act) [24]. A C-SSRS score of 4 or higher indicates not only suicidal ideation, but also specific suicide plans and intent to act, which constitutes a psychiatric emergency requiring immediate intervention [23,24]. Thus, utilizing a C-SSRS score of 4 or higher, rather than a score of 1 or 2 may yield more accurate predictions when assessing suicide risk.

We also examined the predictive power of past suicidal ideation and attempts on future suicide attempts or ideation with intent. The results indicated that only past-year suicide attempts predicted future attempts, with an AUC of 0.709. Notably, the SCI-2 was more predictive of future suicide risk than a past history of suicidal ideation or attempt. These findings, coupled with the limited predictive power of past suicide-related variables for future suicidal behavior [5,6], provide empirical support for the use of the SCI-2.

In the present study, all five subscales of the SCI-2 significantly predicted future suicide attempts. Among them, affective disturbances demonstrated the highest predictive power. This contrasts with findings from a study conducted in the US [11], where loss of cognitive control was identified as the strongest predictor. This discrepancy may be attributed to cultural differences between Korea and Western countries. In the alternative four-factor structure of the SCI-2 validated among Koreans, affective disturbances were combined with physical symptoms and loss of cognitive control. Notably, when examining the predictive power of these alternative subscales, the “affective, cognitive, and physical disturbances” factor emerged as the strongest predictor of future suicide attempts. This finding likely reflects cultural and linguistic characteristics of Koreans, in which emotional distress is often somatized, and cognitive and emotional experiences tend to be more integrated and less distinctly separated [29-32]. In clinical settings, individuals in Korea may also be more likely to report emotional rather than cognitive disturbances. This cultural tendency may explain the prominence of the affective disturbances subscale in predicting prospective suicide attempts in the original five-factor model.

Despite its length of the scale, the SCI-2 offers important advantages that support its clinical utility. First, the SCI-2 does not directly inquire about suicidal ideation or attempts, making it particularly useful for identifying individuals who may intentionally deny or conceal their suicidal intent due to concerns about stigma or social judgment. This indirect approach may be especially beneficial in cultural contexts such as South Korea, where suicide-related stigma remains a significant barrier to disclosure and often hinders help-seeking behavior. Second, while knowledge of past suicidal ideation or attempts provides essential context for assessing suicide risk, it offers limited guidance regarding specific treatment targets. In contrast, the SCI-2, unlike tools such as the C-SSRS, assesses modifiable symptoms, including affective, cognitive, physical, and social disturbances, thereby offering clinicians actionable information for intervention. By identifying underlying symptoms associated with suicidal risk, the SCI-2 can support individualized treatment planning and enhance suicide prevention efforts.

In determining the optimal cutoff point for the SCI-2, we considered the suicide-specific criteria suggested by Runeson et al. [28] along with Youden Index, a common method for identifying a scale’s cutoff point that emphasizes a balance between sensitivity and specificity. Runeson et al. [28] reviewed 17 suicide risk assessment tools and found that only two had a sensitivity greater than 80% and a specificity greater than 50%. Considering that suicide is an irreversible outcome, screening tools for suicide risk should prioritize sensitivity, with efforts focused on reducing Type II error (false negatives).

In this study, we first identified potential cutoff points using both the Youden Index and Runeson’s guidelines. Among those, a score of 102 had the highest sensitivity in predicting prospective suicide attempts, and was also the score where the Youden Index was highest for predicting prospective suicidal ideation with intent. For ease of use in clinical settings, we recommend a single cutoff point of 102 for identifying high risk groups for suicide. However, depending on the clinical context, less stringent criteria may be used to implement interventions for individuals at risk of suicidal ideation.

This study has several limitations. First, in this longitudinal study, we assessed SCS over the past year, rather than the past few days. Given the yearly nature of the study, this approach was used to capture suicidal crisis symptoms, which may fluctuate throughout the year. Thus, we cannot rule out the possibility of memory bias resulting from this retrospective self-reporting method. Second, the SCI-2 scale consists of 61 questions and requires significant time to administer in practice. A reliable and valid scale holds little value if it is not feasible for use in real-world settings. Therefore, further research is needed to develop and validate a shortened version to enhance its accessibility and practical utility.

The most significant aspect of this study is its use of longitudinal data to examine predictive validity. Importantly, the SCI-2 demonstrated the ability to predict future suicidal ideation with intent and attempts in a community population, which generally has a lower suicide risk than psychiatric patients. Given that more than half of individuals who die by suicide do not have a psychiatric diagnosis at the time of their death [3], and that the lifetime utilization rate of mental health services in South Korea is only 4.5% [33], identifying high-risk individuals within the community is crucial for suicide prevention. Therefore, we expect that the SCI-2, which measures suicidal crisis syndrome, will aid in the early detection and prevention of suicide in at-risk individuals.

Supplementary Materials

The Supplement is available with this article at https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2025.0109.

Supplementary Table 1.

Pooled estimates of predictive indices of SCI-2 cutoff scores

pi-2025-0109-Supplementary-Table-1.pdf

Notes

Availability of Data and Material

The datasets generated or analyzed during the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Gangmin Ma, Sungeun You. Data curation: Sungeun You. Formal analysis: Gangmin Ma. Funding acquisition: Sungeun You. Investigation: Sungeun You. Methodology: Gangmin Ma, Sungeun You. Project administration: Sungeun You. Supervision: Sungeun You. Writing—original draft: Gangmin Ma. Writing—review & editing: Gangmin Ma, Sungeun You.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2020S1A5A2A03044181).

Acknowledgments

None

Figure 1.

ROC curves for the prediction of SI and SA at one-year follow-up using the SCI-2 and suicidal behaviors in the past year. A: ROC curves for SI at one-year follow-up. B: ROC curves for SA at one-year follow-up. SI, suicidal ideation with intent; SA, suicide attempts; ROC, receiver operating characteristic; SCI-2, revised Suicide Crisis Inventory; C-SSRS, Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale.

Table 1.

Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study sample

	Baseline (N=837)	Lost to follow-up (N=175)	Completed to follow-up (N=662)	Differences between people who completed the follow-up and those who did not
	Baseline (N=837)	Lost to follow-up (N=175)	Completed to follow-up (N=662)	t or χ²	p
Gender				χ²=22.05	<0.001
Men	104 (12.43)	40 (22.86)	64 (9.67)
Women	732 (87.46)	135 (77.14)	597 (90.18)
Other^*	1 (0.12)	0 (0.00)	1 (0.15)
Age (yr)	31.24±7.21	31.39±7.64	31.20±7.09	t=-0.32	0.751
Employment status				χ²=11.12	0.133
Full-time job	380 (45.40)	73 (41.71)	307 (46.37)
Part-time job	117 (13.98)	18 (10.29)	99 (14.95)
Self-employment	24 (2.87)	7 (4.00)	17 (2.57)
Unemployment	68 (8.12)	10 (5.71)	58 (8.76)
Retired	7 (0.84)	19 (10.86)	7 (1.06)
Housewife	82 (9.80)	26 (14.86)	63 (9.52)
Student	98 (11.71)	5 (2.86)	72 (10.88)
Other	44 (5.26)	158 (90.29)	39 (5.89)
No response	17 (2.03)	17 (9.71)	0 (0.00)
Living status				χ²=0.15	0.926
Living alone	178 (21.27)	33 (18.86)	145 (21.90)
Living with family	608 (72.64)	119 (68.00)	489 (73.87)
Other^†	34 (4.06)	6 (3.43)	28 (4.23)
No response	17 (2.03)	17 (9.71)	0 (0.00)
Education				χ²=5.50	0.064
≤12 years	108 (12.90)	28 (16.00)	80 (12.08)
>12 years	679 (81.12)	119 (68.00)	560 (84.59)
Refused to respond	5 (0.60)	0 (0.00)	5 (0.76)
No response	45 (5.38)	28 (16.00)	17 (2.57)
Marital status				χ²=15.36	<0.001
Single/never married	607 (72.52)	99 (56.57)	508 (76.74)
Married	199 (23.78)	53 (30.29)	146 (22.05)
Other^‡	14 (1.67)	6 (3.43)	8 (1.21)
No response	17 (2.03)	17 (9.71)	0 (0.00)
Suicidal behavior history
SI (lifetime)^§	178 (21.27)	41 (23.43)	137 (20.69)	χ²=0.62	0.432
SA (lifetime)	105 (12.54)	23 (13.14)	82 (12.39)	χ²=0.07	0.788
SI (past year)^§	59 (7.05)	13 (7.43)	46 (6.95)	χ²=0.05	0.825
SA (past year)	21 (2.51)	2 (1.14)	19 (2.87)	χ²=1.69	0.194

Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation.

^* non-binary etc.;

^† living with others except for family, cohabiting etc.;

^‡ divorced, widowed, separated etc.;

^§ Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale ≥4. SI, suicidal ideation with intent; SA, suicide attempts.

Table 2.

Predicting suicidal ideation with intent and suicide attempts at one-year follow-up using the SCI-2 and past-year suicidal behaviors

Predictor	Suicidal ideation with intent (C-SSRS ≥4)			Suicide attempts
Predictor	AUC	p	95% CI	AUC	p	95% CI
SCI-2 total	0.800	<0.001	0.746-0.855	0.803	<0.001	0.694-0.912
SCI-2 five-factor
Entrapment	0.777	<0.001	0.718-0.837	0.714	0.003	0.587-0.840
Affective disturbance	0.797	<0.001	0.746-0.849	0.809	<0.001	0.711-0.906
Loss of cognitive control	0.746	<0.001	0.684-0.808	0.759	<0.001	0.652-0.867
Hyperarousal	0.773	<0.001	0.713-0.832	0.793	<0.001	0.682-0.904
Social withdrawal	0.792	<0.001	0.735-0.849	0.783	<0.001	0.667-0.898
SCI-2 four-factor
F1	0.766	<0.001	0.707-0.824	0.753	0.001	0.633-0.873
F2	0.797	<0.001	0.740-0.853	0.800	<0.001	0.690-0.911
F3	0.729	<0.001	0.670-0.787	0.738	0.001	0.614-0.862
F4	0.792	<0.001	0.735-0.849	0.783	<0.001	0.667-0.898
Past-year suicidal behaviors
Suicidal ideation with intent	0.680	<0.001	0.600-0.761	0.689	0.010	0.530-0.847
Suicide attempts	0.551	0.170	0.473-0.629	0.709	0.004	0.549-0.870

SCI-2, Suicide Crisis Inventory-2; AUC, area under the curve; F1, hopelessness and overwhelming distress; F2, affective, cognitive, and physical disturbances; F3, extreme anxiety; F4, social withdrawal; C-SSRS, Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale; CI, confidence interval.

REFERENCES

1. Berman AL. Risk factors proximate to suicide and suicide risk assessment in the context of denied suicide ideation. Suicide Life Threat Behav 2018;48:340-352.

2. Podlogar MC, Rogers ML, Chiurliza B, Hom MA, Tzoneva M, Joiner T. Who are we missing? Nondisclosure in online suicide risk screening questionnaires. Psychol Assess 2016;28:963-974.

3. Stone DM, Simon TR, Fowler KA, Kegler SR, Yuan K, Holland KM, et al. Vital signs: trends in state suicide rates — United States, 1999-2016 and circumstances contributing to suicide — 27 states, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2018;67:617-624.

4. Borges G, Angst J, Nock MK, Ruscio AM, Kessler RC. Risk factors for the incidence and persistence of suicide-related outcomes: a 10-year follow-up study using the National Comorbidity Surveys. J Affect Disord 2008;105:25-33.

5. Franklin JC, Ribeiro JD, Fox KR, Bentley KH, Kleiman EM, Huang X, et al. Risk factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviors: a meta-analysis of 50 years of research. Psychol Bull 2017;143:187-232.

6. Ribeiro JD, Franklin JC, Fox KR, Bentley KH, Kleiman EM, Chang BP, et al. Self-injurious thoughts and behaviors as risk factors for future suicide ideation, attempts, and death: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychol Med 2016;46:225-236.

7. Galynker I, Yaseen ZS, Cohen A, Benhamou O, Hawes M, Briggs J. Prediction of suicidal behavior in high risk psychiatric patients using an assessment of acute suicidal state: the suicide crisis inventory. Depress Anxiety 2017;34:147-158.

8. Galynker I. The suicidal crisis: A clinical guide to the assessment of imminent suicide risk. (2nd ed). New York: Oxford University Press; 2023.

9. Schuck A, Calati R, Barzilay S, Bloch-Elkouby S, Galynker I. Suicide crisis syndrome: a review of supporting evidence for a new suicide-specific diagnosis. Behav Sci Law 2019;37:223-239.

10. Bloch-Elkouby S, Gorman B, Schuck A, Barzilay S, Calati R, Cohen LJ, et al. The suicide crisis syndrome: a network analysis. J Couns Psychol 2020;67:595-607.

11. Bloch-Elkouby S, Barzilay S, Gorman BS, Lawrence OC, Rogers ML, Richards J, et al. The revised suicide crisis inventory (SCI-2): validation and assessment of prospective suicidal outcomes at one month follow-up. J Affect Disord 2021;295:1280-1291.

12. Barzilay S, Assounga K, Veras J, Beaubian C, Bloch-Elkouby S, Galynker I. Assessment of near-term risk for suicide attempts using the suicide crisis inventory. J Affect Disord 2020;276:183-190.

13. McMullen L, Parghi N, Rogers ML, Yao H, Bloch-Elkouby S, Galynker I. The role of suicide ideation in assessing near-term suicide risk: a machine learning approach. Psychiatry Res 2021;304:114118

14. Parghi N, Chennapragada L, Barzilay S, Newkirk S, Ahmedani B, Lok B, et al. Assessing the predictive ability of the Suicide Crisis Inventory for near-term suicidal behavior using machine learning approaches. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2021;30:e1863

15. Rogers ML, Vespa A, Bloch-Elkouby S, Galynker I. Validity of the modular assessment of risk for imminent suicide in predicting shortterm suicidality. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2021;144:563-577.

16. Yaseen ZS, Hawes M, Barzilay S, Galynker I. Predictive validity of proposed diagnostic criteria for the suicide crisis syndrome: an acute presuicidal state. Suicide Life Threat Behav 2019;49:1124-1135.

17. Park JY, Rogers ML, Bloch-Elkouby S, Richards JA, Lee S, Galynker I, et al. Factor structure and validation of the revised suicide crisis inventory in a Korean population. Psychiatry Investig 2023;20:162-173.

18. Chistopolskaya KA, Rogers ML, Enikolopov SN, Nikolaev EL, Kravtsova NA, Sadovnichaya VS, et al. Adaptation of the Suicide Crisis Inventory (SCI-2) in a Russian internet sample during the COVID-19 epidemic. Suicidology (Russia) 2022;13:88-104.

19. Menon V, Bafna AR, Rogers ML, Richards J, Galynker I. Factor structure and validity of the Revised Suicide Crisis Inventory (SCI-2) among Indian adults. Asian J Psychiatr 2022;73:103119

20. Wu CY, Lee MB, Rogers ML, Chan CT, Chen CY, Richards J, et al. A validation study of the Taiwanese Suicide Crisis Inventory version 2 to detect suicidality in an online population survey. Journal of Suicidology 2022;17:124-133.

21. Peper-Nascimento J, Rogers ML, Richards JA, Diaz AP, Ceretta LB, Keller GS, et al. Suicide Crisis Inventory-2: factor structure, internal consistency, and validity in a Brazilian sample. Braz J Psychiatry 2024;46:e20233366

22. Bafna A, Rogers ML, Galynker II. Predictive validity and symptom configuration of proposed diagnostic criteria for the Suicide Crisis Syndrome: a replication study. J Psychiatr Res 2022;156:228-235.

23. Posner K, Brent D, Lucas C, Gould M, Stanley B, Brown G, et al. Columbia-suicide severity rating scale (C-SSRS). Available at: https://cssrs.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/C-SSRS_Pediatric-SLC_11.14.16.pdf Accessed March 31, 2025.

24. Posner K, Brown GK, Stanley B, Brent DA, Yershova KV, Oquendo MA, 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.

25. Muller MP, Tomlinson G, Marrie TJ, Tang P, McGeer A, Low DE, et al. Can routine laboratory tests discriminate between severe acute respiratory syndrome and other causes of community-acquired pneumonia? Clin Infect Dis 2005;40:1079-1086.

26. Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 1950;3:32-35.

27. Riblet NB, Matsunaga S, Lee Y, Young-Xu Y, Shiner B, Schnurr PP, et al. Tools to detect risk of death by suicide: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Psychiatry 2023;84:21r14385

28. Runeson B, Odeberg J, Pettersson A, Edbom T, Jildevik Adamsson I, Waern M. Instruments for the assessment of suicide risk: a systematic review evaluating the certainty of the evidence. PLoS One 2017;12:e0180292

29. De Vaus J, Hornsey MJ, Kuppens P, Bastian B. Exploring the East-West divide in prevalence of affective disorder: a case for cultural differences in coping with negative emotion. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2018;22:285-304.

30. Kim KH. Expression of emotion by Americans and Koreans. Korean Studies 1985;9:38-56.

31. Lim N. Cultural differences in emotion: differences in emotional arousal level between the East and the West. Integr Med Res 2016;5:105-109.

32. Oyserman D, Lee SW. Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism. Psychol Bull 2008;134:311-342.

33. National Center for Mental Health. National Mental Health Survey 2021. Available at: https://www.mohw.go.kr/board.es?mid=a10411010100&bid=0019&tag=&act=view&list_no=369858. Accessed March 28, 2025.