Cited by 94Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesDeath Anxiety and Social ExclusionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Testing the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide: The Moderating Role of Hopelessness

Hagan, Christopher R., Podlogar, Matthew C., Chu, Carol, Joiner, Thomas E.·2015·International Journal of Cognitive Therapy

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1521/ijct.2015.8.2.99

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hagan, C. R., Podlogar, M. C., Chu, C., & Joiner, T. E.
Affiliations
Florida State University (US)
Venue
International Journal of Cognitive Therapy
Published
2015-06
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
99-113
ISSN
1937-1209 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1895973237
Cited by
94
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 3
FWCI
12.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Journal of Cognitive Therapy (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
interpersonal theory of suicide, hopelessness, thwarted belongingness, perceived burdensomeness, suicidal ideation, suicide planning, suicide risk, moderation, three-way interaction

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