Two informants were interviewed for each of 416 living controls (individuals sampled from the normal population) interviewed in a Chinese case-control psychological autopsy study. The validity of proxy data, obtained using seven psychological autopsy information reconstruction techniques (types 1, 2 and A - E), was evaluated, with living controls' self reports used as the gold-standard. Proxy data for reconstruction technique types 1, 2 and D on the Impulsivity Inventory Scale (total impulsivity score) were no different from the living controls' self report gold standard, whereas data for types A and E were smaller than data from living controls. On the 'acceptance or resignation' sub-scale of the avoidance coping dimension of the Moos Coping Response Inventory, information obtained by reconstruction technique types 1 and D was not significantly different from the living controls' self reports, whereas proxy data from types 2, A and E were smaller than those from the living controls. No statistically significant differences were identified for other proxy data obtained by reconstruction technique types 1, 2, A, D and E. These results indicate that using a second informant does not significantly enhance information reconstruction for the target.