@article{ref1,
title="Assessing crisis chat visitors' capacity to regulate thoughts related to suicide",
journal="Crisis",
year="2021",
author="Coohey, Carol and Neblett, Keri",
volume="ePub",
number="ePub",
pages="ePub-ePub",
abstract="BACKGROUND: Regulation of suicidal thoughts may be defined as a person's beliefs about their capacity to control affective and cognitive processes related to suicide. The inability to regulate suicidal thoughts is related to persistent suicidal thoughts, intentions, attempts, and suicide. Aims: The purpose of this study was to validate a scale that counselors could use to assess chat visitors' capacity to regulate suicidal thoughts. <br><br>METHOD: The validity and reliability of the Regulation of Suicidal Thoughts Scale (RSTS) was evaluated using two different samples (n = 1,162, n = 241). <br><br>RESULTS: All items correlated with the theoretical construct regulation of suicidal thoughts, and the structural model showed the RSTS predicted perceived certainty to attempt suicide. <strike>Construct and criterion validity were inferred from a decrease in visitors' ability to control their thoughts of suicide from pre-chat to post-chat (Cohen's d = 91).</strike> Construct and criterion validity were inferred from <b>an increase</b> in visitors' ability to control their thoughts of suicide from pre-chat to post-chat (Cohen’s d = 91). Greater regulation in thoughts was also related to less certainty to attempt suicide. Limitations: Additional evidence is needed to validate the RSTS, especially among diverse populations. <br><br>CONCLUSION: Counselors could use RSTS pre-chat scores to match counseling skills with specific affective and cognitive processes related to visitors' suicidal thoughts.  This article was corrected: In the article “Assessing crisis chat visitors' capacity to regulate thoughts related to suicide: A brief scale” by C. Coohey and K. Neblett (Crisis, https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000805) there was an error in the abstract.  The second sentence in the results section of the abstract reads like this:  Construct and criterion validity were inferred from a decrease in visitors' ability to control their thoughts of suicide from pre-chat to post-chat (Cohen’s d = 91).  The corrected sentence should read as follows (correction in bold):  Construct and criterion validity were inferred from an increase in visitors’ ability to control their thoughts of suicide from pre-chat to post-chat (Cohen’s d = 91).  The authors regret any inconvenience or confusion the errors may have caused. <p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0227-5910",
doi="10.1027/0227-5910/a000805",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000805"
}