Cited by 369Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology ResearchAttachment and Relationship DynamicsPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Reflective functioning: a review.

Katznelson, Hannah·2014·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

Reflective functioning offers an empirically grounded framework for the assessment of mentalization. This article briefly outlines the theory of mentalization and the development of the Reflective Functioning (RF) scale (Fonagy, Target, Steele, & Steele, 1998). It then offers a review and discussion of empirical studies of parental RF regarding the role of RF in linking adult and child attachment and parental RF in the context of psychopathology. Furthermore, empirical studies on RF in relation to different psychiatric populations and to the role of RF in psychotherapy process and outcome are reviewed and discussed. Although research on RF is still relatively limited, evidence seems to support the relevance of RF as an empirical measure in the fields of attachment, psychopathology and psychotherapy research. However, the RF scale has certain limitations due to the extensiveness of the measure, which future research should take into account.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2013.12.003

Cites

81 of 81 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?

  • No other studies on parenting using the RFS were published until 2005, while RFS was extensively used in other psychological fields.

    “Surprisingly, despite the noteworthy findings from the previous studies, no other studies on parenting using the RFS were published until 2005, while RFS was extensively used in several published papers regarding other psychological fields such as psychopathology and psychotherapy (for a review, Katznelson, 2014).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 82 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Katznelson, H.
Affiliations
University of Copenhagen (DK)
Corresponding author
Katznelson, Hannah
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-03
Volume
34
Issue
2
Pages
107-117
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2038172581
Cited by
369
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
reflective functioning, mentalization, parental reflective functioning, attachment, psychopathology, therapeutic process, psychotherapy outcome, child attachment, psychiatric populations
MeSH terms
Adult, Child, Humans, Object Attachment, Parents, Psychological Theory, Theory of Mind

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