Cited by 131Attachment and Relationship DynamicsPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology ResearchPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Internal structure of the reflective functioning scale.

Taubner, Svenja, Hörz, Susanne, Fischer-Kern, Melitta, Doering, Stephan, Buchheim, Anna, Zimmermann, Johannes·2013·Psychological Assessment

Abstract

The Reflective Functioning Scale (RFS) was developed to assess individual differences in the ability to mentalize attachment relationships. The RFS assesses mentalization from transcripts of the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI). A global score is given by trained coders on an 11-point scale ranging from antireflective to exceptionally reflective. Coding procedures rely on a distinction of demand and permit questions during the AAI. Demand questions directly probe for reflective functioning (RF), whereas permit questions do not. Coding focuses on detecting qualitative markers of RF and qualitative markers of absent RF, respectively. Despite its relevant empirical contributions in clinical research, several psychometric properties of the RFS are still unclear. In this article, we present data on the reliability and internal structure of the RFS based on a combined sample of 196 subjects. We were able to show that (a) the global score can be assessed with good interrater reliability, is relatively stable across time, and is significantly reduced in persons with mental disorders; (b) demand questions are based on a single latent factor; (c) demand questions do not differ in terms of difficulty; (d) all demand questions but 1 are incrementally predictive of the global score; (e) 5 permit questions contribute to the global score over and above demand questions; and (f) the number of qualitative markers of RF is also predictive of the global score. Our results have important conceptual and methodological implications for future studies using the RFS.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0029138

Cites

34 of 34 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

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Taubner, S., Hörz, S., Fischer-Kern, M., Doering, S., Buchheim, A., & Zimmermann, J.
Affiliations
  • Medical University of Vienna (AT)
  • Universität Innsbruck (AT)
  • University of Kassel (DE)
Venue
Psychological Assessment
Published
2013-03
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
127-135
ISSN
  • 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-134X
OpenAlex
W2028346041
Cited by
131
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5
FWCI
8.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Jubilaeumsfonds of the Austrian National Bank (10363)
  • German Federal Ministry of the Interior
  • Köhler-Stiftung
  • Baumgart-Stiftung
  • Bayerische Gleichstellungsförderung
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
reflective functioning, mentalization, Adult Attachment Interview, internal structure, inter-rater reliability, latent factor structure, mental illness, attachment relationships
MeSH terms
Adult, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Male, Middle Aged, Object Attachment, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results, Qualitative Research, Young Adult, 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