| Item |
F1 |
F2 |
F3 |
F4 |
F5 |
| 16. Professional training...should be made available to teachers and staff… |
.757 |
|
|
|
|
| 12. The school should have a mental health consultant |
.699 |
|
|
|
|
| 15. The school should create relationships of trust (school, family, community) |
.696 |
|
|
|
|
| 17. Schools with protocols to help students at risk of suicide after suicide |
.678 |
|
|
|
|
| 13. The first step may be with a specialist... |
.525 |
|
|
|
|
| 10. The first official step is to appoint a crisis team …. |
.446 |
|
|
|
|
| 18. What is your degree of confidence in your ability …? |
|
.897 |
|
|
|
| 19. How prepared are you to identify a student at risk for suicide? |
|
.888 |
|
|
|
| 20. How prepared are you to refer a student at risk of suicide? |
|
.872 |
|
|
|
| 11. Zero tolerance policies in schools are the competence of school community. |
|
|
.603 |
|
|
| 4. A competent school community focuses on developing internal resources for students |
|
|
.570 |
|
|
| 7. Providing parents with information about mental health resources and checklists may constitute a violation of rights |
|
|
.554 |
|
|
| 6. Teachers are already overwhelmed ... A crisis team takes full responsibility for at-risk students. |
|
|
.515 |
|
|
| 14. Educators need details about the student's personal and emotional history before making a referral to the school's mental health resources. |
|
|
.501 |
|
|
| 2. Suicidal ideation is not a problem for the teacher as it does not affect the student's ability to concentrate and learn in the classroom. |
|
|
.499 |
|
|
| 1. The educator/teacher needs to be able to assess, diagnose and treat adolescents at risk of suicide. |
|
|
|
.740 |
|
| 3. If a school has a suicide prevention policy it is considered competent school. |
|
|
|
.583 |
|
| 5. Crisis teams in schools should include community members, and school officials. |
|
|
|
.537 |
|
| 8. It is important to turn to a confidant from your peers. |
|
|
|
|
.807 |
| 9. The most effective school communications are those that are appealing |
|
|
|
|
.564 |
| Explained variation (%) |
18.9% |
11.7% |
10.6% |
6.3% |
5.2% |
| Total explained variation (%) |
51.9% |
|
|
|
|
| Cronbach Alpha (by dimension) |
.74 |
.86 |
.57 |
.51 |
.35 |
| Cronbach Alpha (general) |
.67 |
|
|
|
|