Skip to main content
. 2022 Feb 2;52(3):452–466. doi: 10.1111/sltb.12835

TABLE 2.

Results of inter‐rater reliability exercises: Chatter characteristics and behaviors

Variable Proportion agreement observed Proportion agreement expected Kappa Maximum kappa
Time 1 a Time 3 a Time 1 Time 3 Time 1 Time 3 Time 1 Time 3
Demographics
LGBTQ 1 1 .680 .936 1 1 1 1
Military status .978 .978 .956 .956 .489 .489 .489 .489
Prior chats .956 1 .894 b .580 b .580 b
Life stressors
Break‐up .978 .978 .785 .708 .896 .924 .896 .924
Isolation .889 .844 .680 .563 .653 .644 .653 .797
Sexual abuse 1 1 b b b b b b
Bullying 1 1 .936 b 1 b 1 b
Other abuse .933 .956 .895 .737 .365 .831 .365 .831
Relationship issue .822 .800 .580 .506 .577 .595 .577 .730
Death .978 .956 .895 .803 .788 .775 .788 .775
Other's suicide .933 .956 .838 .838 .588 .726 .588 .726
Financial problem .933 .889 .737 .680 .746 .653 .916 .653
Barrier to treat. .978 .911 .957 .737 .489 .662 .489 .662
Insurance prob. 1 .978 .936 .857 1 .845 1 .845
Lost job .911 .956 .838 .820 .451 .753 .863 .753
Job stress .956 .844 .838 .753 .726 .371 .863 .640
School problem .978 .933 .708 .753 .924 .730 .924 .910
Gender/Sexuality .978 1 .895 .936 .788 1 .788 1
Physical problem .978 .911 .857 .803 .845 .550 .845 .663
Homelessness .978 .978 .978 .915 −.011 .738 −.011 .738
Suicide risk factors
Lifetime ideation .956 .956 .680 .680 .861 .861 1 1
Current ideation .811 .889 .508 .454 .616 .797 .864 .837
Imminent risk .765 .875 .569 .605 .454 .684 .545 .789
Passive ideation .833 .667 .500 .605 .667 .330 1 .598
Attempt in prog. .978 1 .978 b −.011 b −.011 b
Prep for future .972 1 .973 b −.014 b −.014 b
Prep for past .944 .942 .946 .818 −.021 .682 .234 .841
Method chosen .917 .913 .500 .500 .833 .826 .833 .884
Gun 1 .978 b .857 b .845 b .845
Hanging 1 1 b .936 b 1 b 1
Pills 1 1 .510 .680 1 1 1 1
Gas 1 1 .755 b 1 b 1 b
Drowning 1 1 .867 b 1 b 1 b
Bridge/Height 1 1 b .936 b 1 b 1
Moving object 1 1 .867 b 1 b 1 b
Knife/Sharp 1 1 .592 .876 1 1 1 1
Means available .758 c .341 c .632 c .816 c
Place chosen .889 1 .871 b .140 b .355 b
Said had plan .917 .913 .556 .397 .812 .856 .812 .856
Prior attempt(s) .917 .884 .463 .580 .845 .724 .922 .724
NSSI .911 .911 .511 .609 .818 .773 .864 .773
Additional suicide risk factors
Substance abuse .878 .956 .762 .895 .486 .577 .486 .577
Intoxicated 1 1 .936 b 1 b 1 b
SA tx (ever) 1 1 b b b b b b
SA tx (current) 1 b b b
MH diagnosis .911 .889 .583 .571 .787 .741 .893 .793
MH tx (ever) .956 .911 .411 .449 .925 .839 .925 .839
MH tx (current) .867 .846 .380 .396 .785 .746 .929 .767
Psych. hosp. (ever) .978 .933 .753 .876 .910 .464 .910 .643
Recent discharge .978 1 .915 b .738 b .738 b
Reasons for living .889 .840 .639 .706 .693 .457 .754 .638
Steps agreed upon by chatter to mitigate imminent risk
Emergency rescue 1 1 b b b b b b
Self‐rescue 1 1 b b b b b b
Involve others now 1 1 .803 b 1 b 1 b
Move to phone 1 1 b b b b b b
Remove means 1 1 b .936 b 1 b 1
Follow‐up call 1 1 b b b b b b
Risk reduced 1 1 .625 c 1 1 1 1
Chatter behavior at end of chat
Said thanks .889 .933 .509 .502 .774 .866 1 .911
Felt better .844 .889 .563 .556 .644 .750 .898 .850
Accepted coping .844 .911 .694 .803 .492 .550 .928 .775
Accepted MH tx .933 .911 .838 .753 .589 .640 .863 .820
Felt sleepy .978 .956 .915 .936 .738 .310 .738 .310
Had to go .911 .933 .694 .753 .710 .730 .910 .730
Apologetic .911 .956 .857 .956 .380 −.023 .845 −.023
Dissatisfied .978 .956 .785 .936 .896 .310 .896 .310
Ending too soon 1 1 b b b b b b
Abandoned chat .978 .933 .915 .753 .738 .730 .738 .910
Chatter's behavioral changes by end of chat
Less overwhelmed .711 .911 .609 .838 .261 .451 .432 .863
More hopeful .800 .800 .708 .753 .316 .191 .544 .391
More confident .800 .844 .667 .667 .400 .533 .800 .666
Less at risk d .767 .833 .442 .489 .582 .674 .841 .783
a

Inter‐rater reliability exercises, each involving 30 chats coded by three coders, were conducted at the beginning, middle, and end of transcript coding. Results of the first and third exercises are presented here. Results of the second exercise were consistent with these and are available upon request.

b

Coders agreed perfectly on these items; however, kappa could not be calculated due to a lack of variability in responses. This could happen, for example, if all coders answered “No” for all chats.

c

Too few cases to calculate reliability.

d

Dichotomized as “Not at all” vs. “A little” or “Moderately/A lot”.