What it measures
Protective factors — the reasons a person would not kill themselves — across four three-item subscales drawn from Linehan’s original model.
The four are clinically different in a way the total hides. Fear of
Suicide is protective but brittle — fear can be overridden, and it isn’t
something treatment can build. Survival and Coping Beliefs and
Responsibility to Family are the two that respond to clinical work and
that safety planning can actually strengthen.
When to use it
- After a positive risk screen. The order matters: screen for risk first, then inventory what protection the client has to work with.
- Before building a safety plan. The subscales map onto the plan — Responsibility to Family points at Steps 3 and 4 (the people), Survival and Coping Beliefs points at Step 2 (internal coping).
- In DBT and other crisis-protocol work, where reasons for living are an explicit treatment target rather than a background variable.
- When re-engaging after a near-miss or a hospitalization, to find out which of the reasons is still standing.
How clients fill it
Five minutes to answer, and considerably longer to talk about — which is the useful part. The stem reads:“Many people have thought of suicide at least once. Others have never considered it. Whether you have considered it or not, we are interested in the reasons you would have for NOT committing suicide if the thought were to occur to you or if someone were to suggest it to you. On the scale below, please rate the importance to you of each reason for NOT killing yourself. Please rate EVERY item. 1 = Not at all important, 2 = Quite unimportant, 3 = Somewhat unimportant, 4 = Somewhat important, 5 = Quite important, 6 = Extremely important.”All twelve items share six options:
- Not at all important reason
- Quite unimportant
- Somewhat unimportant
- Somewhat important
- Quite important
- Extremely important
How Rivet scores it
“Not at all important reason” scores 1 through to “Extremely important” at 6, with the options between running 2 through 5 in order. No items are reverse-scored. The total is the sum of all twelve items. Range: 12–72. Higher means more protective — the opposite direction from every risk instrument you’d administer alongside it, which is worth saying out loud when you read the two together. The four subscales are each the sum of their three items, so each runs 3–18. Rivet shows the total and all four subscales live in your scoring pill.Reading the score
The RFL has no bands and no cutoff. It is a descriptive protective-factors measure, and there is no total above which a client is safe. What it’s for is the shape, not the number. A client at 52 whose entire score sits in Fear of Suicide and Moral Objections has almost nothing in the two subscales that treatment can build on — that’s a different clinical picture from a client at 52 spread evenly, and the total won’t tell you which one you have. Read it item by item with the client. An item rated “Extremely important” is a specific, named thing to put into the safety plan. An item rated “Not at all important” that you’d have expected to matter is the more important conversation of the two.Clinical change
No minimal clinically important difference is published for the RFL in the source Rivet scores it from. Re-administering it after a period of treatment tells you whether the reasons that were thin have thickened — read the subscales, not the total. Rivet shows current scores; comparison across administrations happens on the client’s record.When NOT to use it
- As a risk assessment. It is not one. See the warning above.
- As an async link. The stem asks about suicide directly. This one is filled with you in the room.
- In an acute crisis. A client in the middle of it needs stabilization and immediate care, not a twelve-item inventory. Give it during a stable period — the same rule that applies to building a safety plan.
- Before you’ve asked about risk at all. Asking someone to rate reasons for not killing themselves without having first asked whether they’re thinking about it is the wrong order of conversation.
RFL-12 vs the suicide risk screens
The RFL-12 is not a risk screen and using it as one would be a mistake. It measures the opposite thing: reasons a person has for staying alive, across survival and coping beliefs, responsibility to family, fear of suicide, and moral objections. Higher is more protective. There is no cutoff. Risk screening is what the C-SSRS does — it grades ideation from a wish to be dead through to a plan with intent, and asks about behaviour in the past three months. The RFL-12 earns its place after a positive screen. Once you know risk is present, it tells you which protective beliefs the client still has access to — and that maps directly onto what a safety plan should lean on. A client whose only intact domain is responsibility to family needs a different plan from one whose survival and coping beliefs are largely intact. The MSPSS sits alongside it and measures something adjacent but distinct: perceived support available now, rather than protective belief.Is it free to use?
Yes, for non-commercial clinical and research use. Per Linehan’s original publication.Citation
Linehan, Goodstein, Nielsen & Chiles (1983). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51: 276–286 — the original 48-item Reasons for Living Inventory. Ivanoff, Jang, Smyth & Linehan (1994). Journal of Personality Assessment, 63: 413–433 — the brief form. Free for clinical and research use, under the non-commercial licence from the 1983 publication.Related articles
Safety plan
The six-step collaborative plan the RFL subscales feed directly into.
C-SSRS
The risk-side assessment to administer alongside this one.
ASQ
The four-question suicide-risk screen that typically comes first.
MSPSS
Perceived social support — the other protective-factor measure in the
library.