Inter-rater agreement is a crucial aspect in the planning and performance of a clinical trial in which the main assessment tool is the clinical interview. The main objectives of this study are to study the inter-rater agreement of a tool for the assessment of suicidal behavior (Brief Suicide Questionnaire) and to examine whether the inter-examiner agreement when multiple ratings are made on a single subject is an efficient method to assess the reliability of an instrument.In the context of designing a multicenter clinical trial, 32 psychiatrists assessed a videotaped clinical interview of a patient with suicidal behavior. In order to identify those items in which a greater level of discordance existed and detect the examiners whose ratings differed significantly from the average ratings, we used the DOMENIC method (Detecion of Multiple Examiners Not in Consensus).Inter-rater agreement was between poor (<70%) to excelent (90-100%. Inter-rater agreement in Brugha's list of threatening experiences ranged from 75.5 and 100%; in the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) Scale was 82.58%; in the Beck's Suicidal Intent Scale, ranged from 67.5 and 97%; in the Beck's Scale for Suicide Ideation, ranged from 63.5 and 100%; and in the Lethality Rating Scale was 88.39%. On the whole, the level of agreement among raters, both in general scores and in particular items, was appropriate.The proposed design allows the assessment of the inter-rater agreement in an efficient way (only in one session). In addition, regarding the Brief Suicide Questionnaire, inter-raters agreement was appropriate.