Search

Past research identifies a number of risk factors for adolescent self-harm, but often fails to account for overlap between these factors. This study investigated the underlying, broader concepts by identifying different psychological profiles among adolescents. We then compared new self-harm rates over a six-month period across different psychological profiles. Australian high school students (n = 326, 68.1% female) completed a questionnaire including a broad range of psychological and socioenvironmental risk and protective factors. Non-hierarchical cluster analysis produced six groups with different psychological profiles at baseline and rate of new self-harm at follow-up. The lowest rate was 1.4% in a group that appeared psychologically healthy; the highest rate was 37.5% in a group that displayed numerous psychological difficulties. Four groups with average self-harm had varied psychological profiles including low impulsivity, anxiety, impulsivity, and poor use of positive coping strategies. Identifying multiple profiles with distinct psychological characteristics can improve detection, guide prevention, and tailor treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Assessing self-harm through brief multiple choice items is simple and less invasive than more detailed methods of assessment. However, there is currently little validation for brief methods of self-harm assessment. This study evaluates the extent to which adolescents’ perceptions of self-harm agree with definitions in the literature, and what level of question detail produces optimal concordance rates. Two hundred and thirty-three (69% female) first year university students aged 17–21 completed a self-harm coding task; we created three levels of question detail and randomly allocated participants to three study groups: brief, low detail, and high detail. The present findings suggest that that adolescents’ perceptions of self-harm are generally concordant with a consensus definition of self-harm. Low level of detail in the question produced greatest accuracy in responses; adolescents who demonstrated adequate task understanding were able to correctly identify 94% of examples of self-harm behaviour and 86% of examples of behaviour that were not self-harm. We identified lower concordance rates for eating disordered behaviour and recreational petrol sniffing. This indicates that adolescents perceive these behaviours to be self-harm, in contrast to the reference definition we utilised. Overall, this study provides support for using a brief assessment of self-harm where minimal detail regarding self-harm behaviour is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]