ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Concurrent Validity of Digital Measures of Psychological Dimensions Associated with Suicidality Using AuxiliApp.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Suicide is a major public health concern, and accurate risk assessment is essential for prevention. Slider-format questions offer a quick, intuitive, and accessible method to evaluate suicide-related dimensions. This study examines the reliability of slider-based items compared to standardized psychometric instruments when delivered via a mobile app. A total of 299 university students completed a digital self-report questionnaire using the AuxiliApp mobile platform. Participants answered validated scales assessing depression, psychological pain, suicidal ideation, anger, impulsivity, loneliness, and reasons for living, each presented in both traditional Likert and novel slider formats. Pearson correlations were used to evaluate the relationship between traditional and slider-based scores. All correlations were statistically significant (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.