Cited by 113Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesMental Health Research TopicsMental Health and Psychiatry

Understanding Suicide Risk Within the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) Framework: Insights, Challenges, and Future Research Considerations

Open access
Glenn, Catherine R., Cha, Christine B., Kleiman, Evan M., Nock, Matthew K.·2017·Clinical Psychological Science

Abstract

Suicide is a leading cause of death worldwide. Prior research has focused primarily on sociodemographic and psychiatric risk factors with little improvement in the prediction or prevention of suicidal behavior over time. The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) may be an especially useful framework for advancing research in this area. This article provides a brief and broad overview of research on suicidal behavior relating to each of the RDoC domains—highlighting the RDoC construct(s) where research has focused, the construct(s) where research is lacking, and suggestions for future research directions. We also discuss major challenges for suicide research within the RDoC framework, including the intersection of RDoC domains, interaction of domains with the environment, incorporation of developmental stage, integration of distal and proximal processes, and inclusion of suicide-specific constructs. We conclude by underscoring important considerations for future research aimed at using the RDoC framework to study suicidal behavior and other forms of psychopathology.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2167702616686854

Cites

210 of 210 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This study had strengths including prospective evaluation of suicidal outcomes, measurement at multiple RDoC levels in a transdiagnostic sample, and a dynamic, multilevel statistical approach allowing for prospective modeling of diathesis and stress interplay.

    “This study had many strengths, including prospective evaluation of suicidal outcomes, measurement at multiple Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) levels in a transdiagnostic sample [48], and the dynamic, multilevel statistical approach allowing for prospective modeling of diathesis and stress interplay.”

    From HPA axis response and psychosocial stress as interactive predictors of suicidal ideation and behavior in adolescent females: a multilevel diathesis-stress framework (2018) · cites this paper as [48]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Chronic or relatively stable processes and characteristics are likely more relevant to long-term or general risk, and their low temporal variance makes them less able to predict short-term risk robustly.

    “This is an important consideration because chronic or relatively stable processes and characteristics are likely more relevant to understanding long-term or general risk (Glenn et al., 2017), and their relatively low temporal variance means they lack the temporal sensitivity required to be robust predictors of short-term risk.”

    From Sleep and suicide: A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies (2020) · cites this paper as Glenn et al., 2017

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. NIMH Arousal and Regulatory Systems: Workshop Proceedings Research Domain Criteria Workshop Proceedings 2012 Retrieved from http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research-priorities/rdoc/arousal-and-regulatory-systems-workshop-proceedings.shtml

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Glenn, C. R., Cha, C. B., Kleiman, E. M., & Nock, M. K.
Affiliations
  • University of Rochester (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Glenn, Catherine R.
Venue
Clinical Psychological Science
Published
2017-04-26
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
568-592
ISSN
  • 2167-7026 (ISSN-L)
  • 2167-7034
OpenAlex
W2608797004
Cited by
113
References
210
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 5
FWCI
16.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Chet and Will Griswold Suicide Prevention Fund
  • John T. and Catherine D. MacArthur Foundation
  • National Institute of Mental Health (HHSN271201500513P)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
Keywords
suicide risk, suicidal behavior, Research Domain Criteria, suicide prevention, suicide risk prediction, risk factors, developmental stages, psychopathology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review