Evidence mapPaperPMID 40474654Full record

ArticleInquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing

Psychometric Evaluation of the Positive and Negative Suicide Ideation Inventory in Ecuadorian Population.

Daniel Oleas, José Alejandro Valdevila Figueira, Rocio Valdevila Santiestevan, Rodrigo Moreta-Herrera, Guido Mascialino, Jose A Rodas

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Daniel OleasUniversidad Ecotec, Samborondón, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0002-7347-814X
José Alejandro Valdevila FigueiraUniversidad Ecotec, Samborondón, Ecuador.
Rocio Valdevila SantiestevanResearch Network in Psychology and Psychiatry (GIPSI), Guayaquil, Ecuador.
Rodrigo Moreta-HerreraPontificia Universidad Católica Del Ecuador, Ambato, Ecuador.
Guido MascialinoUniversidad de Las Américas, Quito, Ecuador.
Jose A RodasUniversidad Espíritu Santo, Samborondón, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0001-8217-0238

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Positive and Negative Suicide Ideation (PANSI) inventory is a widely used measure to assess risk and protective factors associated with suicidal ideation. Despite its use in various populations, its psychometric properties have not been evaluated in Ecuador. This study examines the reliability, factorial structure, and convergent validity of the PANSI in a sample of Ecuadorian university students. A total of 702 university students completed the PANSI, the Beck Hopelessness Scale, and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to evaluate the factorial structure of the PANSI. Convergent validity was examined through Pearson correlations between PANSI subscales and external measures. Both subscales of the PANSI demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Negative Suicide Ideation: ω = 0.95; Positive Suicide Ideation: ω = 0.82). CFA supported the original 2-factor model, with adequate fit indices (RMSEA = 0.092, SRMR = 0.08, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99). The Negative Suicide Ideation subscale correlated positively with hopelessness (

Indexed as

Psychiatric Status Rating ScalesPsychometricsStudentsSuicidal IdeationAdolescentAdultEcuadorFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsRisk FactorsSelf ConceptSurveys and QuestionnairesUniversitiesPANSIpsychometricssuicidal ideationsuicide prevention strategiessurveys and questionnairesuniversity students

Identifiers

PMID40474654
PMCPMC12144383

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.