To examine the relationship between parent-adolescent CBQ and suicidal thought severity BSSI, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated. Results showed correlations ranged from 0.01 to 0.259. The highest correlation was between CBQ item 12 (parent perceived) and BSSI item 5 (no suicidal thoughts), r = 0.259. Relatively high correlations were also found between CBQ items 19, 20, and 16 with BSSI items 2, 1, and 14, respectively. About 25 correlations exceeded 0.15, indicating moderate and significant relationships, though most coefficients were weak (below 0.15).
To examine the relationship between parent-adolescent conflict and suicidal thought severity, Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated between CBQ and BSSI items.
Table 1 shows significant positive correlations above 0.15, ranging from 0.152 to 0.259, indicating weak to moderate links. The highest correlation was between CBQ item 12 and BSSI item 15 (no suicidal thoughts) with r = 0.259, indicating a stronger association. CBQ items 16 (inconsistency), 17 (yelling), 15 (complaining), and 19 (support in crisis) also showed notable correlations with BSSI items. These results suggest certain parent-child interaction elements, especially support or conflict, significantly relate to suicidal thought severity or planning (
Table 1).
| BSSI Item | CBQ Item | Correlation (r) |
|---|
| BSSI5 | CBQ12 | 0.259 |
| BSSI2 | CBQ16 | 0.254 |
| BSSI5 | CBQ17 | 0.231 |
| BSSI1 | CBQ16 | 0.205 |
| BSSI14 | CBQ19 | 0.195 |
| BSSI14 | CBQ20 | 0.178 |
| BSSI2 | CBQ15 | 0.174 |
| BSSI15 | CBQ19 | 0.172 |
| BSSI1 | CBQ15 | 0.168 |
| BSSI18 | CBQ19 | 0.166 |
| BSSI5 | CBQ6 - We get angry with each other (≥ 3/week) | 0.165 |
| BSSI13 | CBQ17 | 0.163 |
| BSSI5 | CBQ20 | 0.161 |
| BSSI16 | CBQ20 | 0.157 |
| BSSI17 | CBQ19 | 0.152 |
Abbreviations: CBQ, Conflict Behavior Questionnaire; BSSI, Beck Suicidal Ideation Scale.
To assess the predictive performance of machine learning models in identifying suicide risk based on parent-child conflict (CBQ items), four classification algorithms were evaluated: Logistic regression, support vector machine (SVM), random forest, and XGBoost. Participants were divided into two classes according to their total BSSI scores: Class 0 for low suicide risk (BSSI ≤ 8), and class 1 for high suicide risk (BSSI > 8).
Performance metrics included accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score, reported separately for each class. The definitions are as follows:
- Precision: The proportion of predicted positives that are truly correct.
- Recall (sensitivity): The proportion of actual positives correctly identified by the model.
- F1-score: The harmonic means of precision and recall, especially useful for imbalanced datasets.
- Support: The number of true instances in each class in the test set.
- Accuracy: The overall percentage of correctly classified instances.
- Macro average: The unweighted mean of precision, recall, and F1 across both classes.
- Weighted average: The mean of each metric weighted by the number of instances in each class (support) (
Table 2).
| Model | Accuracy (%) | Precision (Class 0) | Recall (Class 0) | F1 (Class 0) | Precision (Class 1) | Recall (Class 1) | F1 (Class 1) |
|---|
| Logistic regression | 78.79 | 0.72 | 0.87 | 0.79 | 0.87 | 0.72 | 0.79 |
| SVM | 78.79 | 0.70 | 0.93 | 0.80 | 0.92 | 0.67 | 0.77 |
| Random forest | 78.79 | 0.72 | 0.87 | 0.79 | 0.87 | 0.72 | 0.79 |
| XGBoost | 69.70 | 0.62 | 0.87 | 0.72 | 0.83 | 0.56 | 0.67 |
All models except XGBoost achieved an overall accuracy of 78.79%. The SVM model had the highest recall for class 0 (0.93), while logistic regression and random forest showed similar performance across all metrics.
Table 3 summarizes the macro-averaged precision, recall, and F1-scores across both classes for each model.
| Model | Macro Precision | Macro Recall | Macro F1-Score |
|---|
| SVM | 0.81 | 0.80 | 0.79 |
| Logistic regression | 0.79 | 0.79 | 0.79 |
| Random forest | 0.79 | 0.79 | 0.79 |
| XGBoost | 0.73 | 0.71 | 0.69 |
Figure 1 illustrates the overall accuracy comparison of the four models. As shown, logistic regression, SVM, and random forest achieved the same level of accuracy at 78.79%, while XGBoost performed with lower accuracy at 69.70%.
Comparison of classification accuracy among models