Prospective association of psychological pain and hopelessness with suicidal thoughts

Suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STBs) are major public health problems that have not declined appreciably in several decades. One of the first steps to improving the prevention and treatment of STBs is to establish risk factors (i.e., longitudinal predictors). To provide a summary of current knowledge about risk factors, we conducted a meta-analysis of studies that have attempted to longitudinally predict a specific STB-related outcome. This included 365 studies (3,428 total risk factor effect sizes) from the past 50 years. The present random-effects meta-analysis produced several unexpected findings: across odds ratio, hazard ratio, and diagnostic accuracy analyses, prediction was only slightly better than chance for all outcomes; no broad category or subcategory accurately predicted far above chance levels; predictive ability has not improved across 50 years of research; studies rarely examined the combined effect of multiple risk factors; risk factors have been homogenous over time, with 5 broad categories accounting for nearly 80% of all risk factor tests; and the average study was nearly 10 years long, but longer studies did not produce better prediction. The homogeneity of existing research means that the present meta-analysis could only speak to STB risk factor associations within very narrow methodological limits-limits that have not allowed for tests that approximate most STB theories. The present meta-analysis accordingly highlights several fundamental changes needed in future studies. In particular, these findings suggest the need for a shift in focus from risk factors to machine learning-based risk algorithms. (PsycINFO Database Record

The cross-lagged panel model (CLPM) is believed by many to overcome the problems associated with the use of cross-lagged correlations as a way to study causal influences in longitudinal panel data. The current article, however, shows that if stability of constructs is to some extent of a trait-like, time-invariant nature, the autoregressive relationships of the CLPM fail to adequately account for this. As a result, the lagged parameters that are obtained with the CLPM do not represent the actual within-person relationships over time, and this may lead to erroneous conclusions regarding the presence, predominance, and sign of causal influences. In this article we present an alternative model that separates the within-person process from stable between-person differences through the inclusion of random intercepts, and we discuss how this model is related to existing structural equation models that include cross-lagged relationships. We derive the analytical relationship between the cross-lagged parameters from the CLPM and the alternative model, and use simulations to demonstrate the spurious results that may arise when using the CLPM to analyze data that include stable, trait-like individual differences. We also present a modeling strategy to avoid this pitfall and illustrate this using an empirical data set. The implications for both existing and future cross-lagged panel research are discussed.

Determining sample size requirements for structural equation modeling (SEM) is a challenge often faced by investigators, peer reviewers, and grant writers. Recent years have seen a large increase in SEMs in the behavioral science literature, but consideration of sample size requirements for applied SEMs often relies on outdated rules-of-thumb. This study used Monte Carlo data simulation techniques to evaluate sample size requirements for common applied SEMs. Across a series of simulations, we systematically varied key model properties, including number of indicators and factors, magnitude of factor loadings and path coefficients, and amount of missing data. We investigated how changes in these parameters affected sample size requirements with respect to statistical power, bias in the parameter estimates, and overall solution propriety. Results revealed a range of sample size requirements (i.e., from 30 to 460 cases), meaningful patterns of association between parameters and sample size, and highlight the limitations of commonly cited rules-of-thumb. The broad "lessons learned" for determining SEM sample size requirements are discussed.