Cited by 35Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology ResearchAttachment and Relationship DynamicsMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum

Self‐report measure of parental reflective functioning: A study of reliability and validity across three samples of varying clinical risk

Carlone, Christina, Milan, Stephanie, Decoste, Cindy, Borelli, Jessica L., McMahon, Thomas J., Suchman, Nancy E.·2023·Infant Mental Health Journal

Abstract

The Parental Reflective Functioning Questionnaire (PRFQ) provides an efficient way to measure a parent's capacity to recognize their child's mental states and to understand the relationship between underlying mental states and behavior. To date, limited work evaluates its psychometric properties beyond initial validation studies. Here we examined the reliability and validity of the PRFQ in three samples of varying clinical risk (e.g., community sample, previous mental health diagnosis, substance use disorder diagnosis). Across samples, the majority (e.g., 75%–78%) of mothers identified as White; all mothers were from the USA. We compared the PRFQ to task‐based measures of mentalization, the Parent Development Interview (PDI), and measures of the parent‐child relationship. The PRFQ was a reliable measure across samples, and it was associated in theoretically consistent ways with task‐based measures of mentalization. Parental RF across the PDI and PRFQ were not highly correlated in a sample of mothers with substance use disorders. Existing RF measures may be tapping into a different component of the broader construct of parental reflective functioning (PRF). The PRFQ was further validated by demonstrating relationships with parent‐report measures of the parent‐child relationship. Taken together, these findings provide additional support for the reliability and validity of the PRFQ.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/imhj.22046

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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
Carlone, C., Milan, S., Decoste, C., Borelli, J. L., McMahon, T. J., & Suchman, N. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Connecticut (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
Corresponding author
Carlone, Christina
Venue
Infant Mental Health Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-03
Volume
44
Issue
2
Pages
240-254
ISSN
  • 0163-9641 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0355
OpenAlex
W4322726625
Cited by
35
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 9
FWCI
10.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Infant Mental Health Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA017294)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Keywords
parental reflective functioning, mentalization, parent-child relationship, psychometric validation, reliability statistics, validity, substance use disorders, mothers
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Mothers, Parents, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Self Report

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