Assessment Instruments

Uni­ver­sity of WA Risk Assess­ment Pro­to­col (UWRAP)

CITATION:

Reynolds, S.K., Lin­den­boim, N., Com­tois, K.A.Murray, A., Line­han, M.M. (2006) Risky Assess­ments: Par­tic­i­pant Sui­ci­dal­ity and Dis­tress Asso­ci­ated with Research Assess­ments in a Treat­ment Study of Sui­ci­dal Behav­ior. Sui­cide and Life-Threatening Behav­ior (36) 1, 19–33.

Line­han Risk Assess­ment & Man­age­ment Pro­to­col (LRAMP, For­merly UWRAMP)

CITATION

Line­han, M.M. (2009) Uni­ver­sity of Wash­ing­ton Risk Assess­ment Action Pro­to­col: UWRAMP, Uni­ver­sity of WA, Unpub­lished Work.

Bor­der­line Symp­tom List (BSL)

The BSL is a self-report ques­tion­naire that assesses spe­cific com­plaints and sub­jec­tive impair­ments of indi­vid­u­als with BPD.

ARTICLE:

Bohus M., Lim­berger, M.F., Frank, U., Chap­man, A.L., Kuh­ler, T., Stieglitz, R.D. (2007) Psy­cho­me­t­ric Prop­er­ties of the Bor­der­line Symp­tom List (BSL). Psy­chopa­hol­ogy, 40, 126–132.

DBT-WCCL Scale and Scoring

CITATION:

Neac­siu, A.D., Rizvi, S.L., Vital­iano, P. P., Lynch, T.R., & Line­han, M.M.  (2010) The Dialec­ti­cal Behav­ior Ther­apy Ways of Cop­ing Check­list (DBT-WCCL):  Devel­op­ment and Psy­cho­me­t­ric Prop­er­ties.  Jour­nal of Clin­i­cal Psy­chol­ogy, 66(61), 1–20.

Demo­graphic Data Scale (DDS)

The DDS is a self-report ques­tion­naire used to gather exten­sive demo­graphic infor­ma­tion from the client.

CITATION:

Line­han, M.M. (1982). Demo­graphic Data Sched­ule (DDS). Uni­ver­sity of Wash­ing­ton, Seat­tle, WA, Unpub­lished work.

Diary Cards

Immi­nent Risk and Action Plan

Life­time — Sui­cide Attempt Self-Injury Count (L-SASI)

The L-SASI is an inter­view to obtain a detailed life­time his­tory of non-suicidal self-injury and sui­ci­dal behavior.

Cita­tion:

Line­han, M. M. & Com­tois, K. (1996). Life­time Para­sui­cide His­tory. Uni­ver­sity of Wash­ing­ton, Seat­tle, WA, Unpub­lished work.

Sui­cide Attempt Self-Injury Inter­view (SASII (for­merly PHI)

The SASII (for­merly the PHI) is an inter­view to col­lect details of the topog­ra­phy, intent, med­ical sever­ity, social con­text, pre­cip­i­tat­ing and con­cur­rent events, and out­comes of non-suicidal self-injury and sui­ci­dal behav­ior dur­ing a tar­get time period. Major SASII out­come vari­ables are the fre­quency of self-injurious and sui­ci­dal behav­iors, the med­ical risk of such behav­iors, sui­cide intent, a risk/rescue score, instru­men­tal intent, and impulsiveness.

Detailed expla­na­tion of the scor­ing of SPSS syntax:

  • Thank you for your inter­est in using the SASII. There are two sets of instruc­tions on the web­site. One explains what each question/variable name refers to, and the other one offers the SPSS syn­tax for scor­ing the instru­ment. Here are some expla­na­tions that may help you bet­ter under­stand the SPSS syntax:
  1. This form: https://depts.washington.edu/brtc/files/SASII%20Standard%20(Short)%20Form.pdf has the instru­ment with labeled vari­ables. You can see that next to every ques­tion there is a label in paren­the­sis for that ques­tion. For exam­ple the first ques­tion starts with : S1______(PHISO2), which means the vari­able cor­re­spond­ing to the ques­tion is called PHISO2. you can iden­tify what each vari­able is based on this doc­u­ment. So, for exam­ple, vari­able ph47 refers to ques­tion 25 (below). In spss lan­guage, the vari­able name will be PH47, the vari­able label will be some­thing on the lines of “cat­e­gory of behav­ior” and the pos­si­ble val­ues this vari­able can take are 1, 2, 3, 4, … etc. The value labels would be “acci­den­tal self harm” for value 1, “other” for 9, etc
    • 25 _____(PH47) INTERVIEWERBASED ON DEFINITION OF SASII ON APPENDIX, CATEGORIZE BEHAVIORCODING SHOULD REFLECT YOUR BEST JUDGMENT BASED ON ALL INFORMATION.
    • 1 = Acci­den­tal self-harm, with­out undue risk tak­ing and with­out unrea­son­able expec­ta­tion of safety
    • 2 = Acci­den­tal self-harm, with undue risk tak­ing or with unrea­son­able expec­ta­tion of safety
    • 3 = Victim-precipitated self-harm, with­out intent to be harmed by oth­ers but with undue risk tak­ing or wiun­rea­son­able expec­ta­tion of safety
    • 4 = “Victim-precipitated” self-harm with intent to be harmed by other 9 = OTHER, includ­ing absence of a behav­ior, which results in harm or ill­ness (e.g., stopped tak­ing impomed­i­cines such as insulin)
    • 5 = Inten­tional self-injury, but not a sui­cide attempt
    • 6 = Ambiva­lent sui­cide attempt
    • 7 = Sui­cide attempt with no ambivalence
    • 8 = Sui­cide attempt that is a “failed sui­cide”, with con­tin­ued life purely acci­den­tal and a near miracle

2. Using this infor­ma­tion, you can parse out of the scor­ing syn­tax what vari­ables the syn­tax refers to. For exam­ple, the first block of syn­tax attempts to com­pute the num­ber of non sui­ci­dal self injury (NSSI) episodes (vari­able name=phcnosa). Basi­cally this syn­tax says that if vari­able ph47 is coded less than 5 or greater than 5, then the NSSI vari­able, phc­nosa, should be defined as 0; if ph47 is coded as 5, then phc­nosa should take the value recorded in the ph04 (# of para­sui­ci­dal acts) vari­able. In this way, the phc­nosa vari­able will rep­re­sent the num­ber of non-suicidal self injury acts. The same logic goes behind each block of syn­tax that com­putes SASII vari­ables.********# of non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) acts********.IF ((ph47< 5) or (ph47 > 5)) phcnosa=0.IF (ph47=5) phcnosa=ph04.

3. Last impor­tant com­mand to under­stand is the Vari­able labels com­mand. This sim­ply tells you and SPSS how to name each vari­able (or what the vari­able label should be). for exam­ple, ph04 is labeled “num­ber of para­sui­cide events in clus­ter”, ph11 is labeled “med­ical risk of death” etc.

    • VARIABLE LABELS
    • PH04 ‘Num­ber of para­sui­cide events in cluster’
    • PH11 ‘Med­ical risk of death’
    • PH13b ‘Con­scious expec­ta­tion of fatal outcome’
    • PH14 ‘Did con­sider episode a sui­cide attempt’
    • PH15 ‘Now do you con­sider episode a sui­cide attempt’PH18 ‘Com­mu­ni­cated sui­cide ideation’
    • PH19 ‘Did sub­ject threaten suicide’

4. other com­mands ref­er­enced in the doc­u­ment are:

    1. RECODE (changes the val­ues of a vari­able). this is like other instru­ments where you want to inverse the scores, or do other such manip­u­la­tions before you com­pute your final score
    2. COMPUTE: cre­ates a new variable
    3. MEAN.4 (or MEAN.5, or MEAN.x in gen­eral) com­putes the mean of what­ever is between the paren­the­ses, as long as at least 4 (5 or x) items are actual data (not miss­ing data)
    4. MISSING VALUES ph32r (LO THRU –1): this says that for vari­able ph32R every­thing below –1 should be con­sid­ered a miss­ing value. for exam­ple, if ph32r was coded as –8, that’s not an actual value, it is a “not applic­a­ble” value which should not be used when com­put­ing any score
    5. VALUE LABELS: indi­cate the labels for each value that each vari­able can take.

Arti­cle:

Line­han, M.M., Com­tois, K.A., Brown, M.Z., Heard, H.L., Wag­ner, A. (2006). Sui­cide Attempt Self-Injury Inter­view (SASII): Devel­op­ment, Reli­a­bil­ity, And Valid­ity of A Scale To Assess Sui­cide Attempts And Inten­tional Self-Injury. Psy­cho­log­i­cal Assess­ment, 18(3), 303–312.

Parental Affect Test

The Line­han Parental Affect Test is a self-report ques­tion­naire that assesses par­ent responses to typ­i­cal child behaviors.

ARTICLE:

Line­han, M. et al (1983) The Par­ent Affect Test — Devel­op­ment, Valid­ity and Reliability

CITATION:

Line­han, M. M., Paul, E., & Egan, K. J. (1983). The par­ent affect test: Devel­op­ment, valid­ity, and reli­a­bil­ity.  Jour­nal of Clin­i­cal Child Psy­chol­ogy, 12, 161–166.

Rea­sons for Liv­ing Scale (RFL)

The RFL is a self-report ques­tion­naire that mea­sures clients’ expectan­cies about the con­se­quences of liv­ing ver­sus killing one­self and assesses the impor­tance of var­i­ous rea­sons for liv­ing. The mea­sure has six sub­scales: Sur­vival and Cop­ing Beliefs, Respon­si­bil­ity to Fam­ily, Child-Related Con­cerns, Fear of Sui­cide, Fear of Social Dis­ap­proval, and Moral Objections.

ARTICLE:

Line­han (1983) Rea­sons for stay­ing alive when you’re think­ing of killing yourself

CITATION:

Line­han M.M., Good­stein J.L., Nielsen S.L., & Chiles J.A. (1983). Rea­sons for stay­ing alive when you are think­ing of killing your­self: The Rea­sons for Liv­ing Inven­tory.  Jour­nal of Con­sult­ing and Clin­i­cal Psy­chol­ogy, 51, 276–286.

Social His­tory Inter­view (SHI)

The SHI is an inter­view to gather infor­ma­tion about a client’s sig­nif­i­cant life events over a desired period of time. The SHI was devel­oped by adapt­ing and mod­i­fy­ing the psy­choso­cial func­tion­ing por­tion of both the Social Adjust­ment Scale-Self Report (SAS-SR) and the Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Inter­view Follow-up Eval­u­a­tion Base Sched­ule (LIFE) to assess a vari­ety of events (e.g., jobs, moves, rela­tion­ship end­ings, jail) dur­ing the tar­get time­frame. Using the LIFE, func­tion­ing is rated in each of 10 areas (e.g., work, house­hold, social inter­per­sonal rela­tions, global social adjust­ment) for the worst week in each of the pre­ced­ing four months and for the best week over­all. Self-report rat­ings using the SAS-SR are used to cor­rob­o­rate inter­view ratings.

CITATIONS:

Weiss­man, M.M., & Both­well, S. (1976). Assess­ment of social adjust­ment by patient self-report.  Archives of Gen­eral Psy­chi­a­try, 33, 1111–1115.

Keller, M.B., Lavori, P.W., Fried­man, B., Nielsen, E.C., Endi­cott, J., McDonald-Scott, P., & Andreasen, N.C. (1987).  The lon­gi­tu­di­nal inter­val follow-up eval­u­a­tion: A com­pre­hen­sive method for assess­ing out­come in prospec­tive lon­gi­tu­di­nal stud­ies. Archives of Gen­eral Psy­chi­a­try, 44, 540–548.

Sub­stance Abuse His­tory Inter­view (SAHI)

The SAHI is an inter­view to assess peri­ods of drug use (by drug), alco­hol use, and absti­nence in a client’s life over a desired period of time. The SAHI com­bines the drug and alco­hol use items from the Addic­tion Sever­ity Index (ASI) and the Time Line Follow-back Assess­ment Method to col­lect infor­ma­tion about the quan­tity, fre­quency, and quan­tity X fre­quency of alco­hol and drug consumption.

CITATIONS:

McLel­lan, A.T., Luborsky, L., Woody, G.E., & O’Brien, C.P. (1980). An improved diag­nos­tic eval­u­a­tion instru­ment for sub­stance abuse patients: The Addic­tion Sever­ity Index.  Jour­nal of Ner­vous and Men­tal Dis­ease, 168, 26–33.

Sobell, M.B., Sobell, L.C., Kla­jner, F., Pavan, D.,& Basian, E. (1986). The reli­a­bil­ity of a time­line method for assess­ing nor­mal drinker col­lege stu­dents’ recent drink­ing his­tory: Util­ity for alco­hol research.  Addic­tive Behav­iors, 11, 149–161.

Sui­ci­dal Behav­iors Ques­tion­naire (SBQ)

The SBQ is a self-report ques­tion­naire designed to assess sui­ci­dal ideation, sui­cide expectan­cies, sui­cide threats and com­mu­ni­ca­tions, and sui­ci­dal behavior.

CITATION:

Addis, M. & Line­han, M. M. (1989). Pre­dict­ing sui­ci­dal behav­ior: Psy­cho­me­t­ric prop­er­ties of the Sui­ci­dal Behav­iors Ques­tion­naire.  Poster pre­sented at the Annual Meet­ing of the Asso­ci­a­tion for the Advance­ment Behav­ior Ther­apy, Wash­ing­ton, D.C.

Ther­a­pist Inter­view (TI)

The TI is an inter­view to gather infor­ma­tion from a ther­a­pist about their treat­ment for a spe­cific client.

CITATION:

Line­han, M. M. (1987). Ther­a­pist Inter­view. Uni­ver­sity of Wash­ing­ton, Seat­tle, WA, Unpub­lished work.

Treat­ment His­tory Inter­view (THI)

The THI is an inter­view to gather detailed infor­ma­tion about a client’s psy­chi­atric and med­ical treat­ment over a desired period of time. Sec­tion 1 assesses the client’s uti­liza­tion of pro­fes­sional psy­chother­apy, com­pre­hen­sive treat­ment pro­grams (e.g., sub­stance abuse pro­grams, day treat­ment), case man­age­ment, self-help groups, and other non-professional forms of treat­ment. Sec­tion 2 assesses the client’s uti­liza­tion of inpa­tient units (psy­chi­atric and med­ical), emer­gency treat­ment (e.g., emer­gency room vis­its, para­medics vis­its, police well­ness checks), and med­ical treat­ment (e.g., physi­cian and clinic vis­its). Sec­tion 3 assesses the use of psy­chotropic and non-psychotropic medications.

CITATION:

Line­han, M.M. & Heard, H.L. (1987). Treat­ment his­tory inter­view (THI). Uni­ver­sity of Wash­ing­ton, Seat­tle, WA, Unpub­lished work.

Ther­apy and Risk Notes — do not use with­out citation

For clar­ity of how to imple­ment these items, please see Cognitive-Behavioral Treat­ment of Bor­der­line Per­son­al­ity Book chap­ter 15.

CITATION:

Line­han, M.M. (2009) Ses­sion Notes — Indi­vid­ual, Uni­ver­sity of WA, Unpub­lished Work.