Cited by 138Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyPersonality Traits and PsychologyPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

A Critical Evaluation of the Reflective Functioning Questionnaire (RFQ)

Open access
Müller, Sascha, Wendt, Leon P., Spitzer, Carsten, Masuhr, Oliver, Back, Sarah N., Zimmermann, Johannes·2022·Journal of Personality Assessment

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The Reflective Functioning Questionnaire (RFQ) is an 8-item self-report measure of reflective functioning that is presumed to capture individual differences in hypo- and hypermentalizing. Despite its broad acceptance by the field, we argue that the validity of the measure is not well-established. The current research elaborates on problems of the RFQ related to its item content, scoring procedure, dimensionality, and associations with psychopathology. We tested these considerations across three large clinical and non-clinical samples from Germany and the US (total N = 2289). In a first study, we found that the RFQ may assess a single latent dimension related to hypomentalizing but is rather unlikely to capture maladaptive forms of hypermentalizing. Moreover, the RFQ exhibited very strong associations with measures of personality pathology, while associations with measures of symptom distress were less strong. In a second preregistered study focused on convergent and discriminant validity, however, a commonality analysis indicated that associations with indicators of personality pathology are inflated because some of the RFQ items tap into emotional lability and impulsivity rather than mentalizing. Our findings demonstrate limitations of the RFQ. We discuss key challenges in assessing mentalizing via self-report.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00223891.2021.1981346

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The validity of self-report measures to assess parenting representations such as parental reflective functioning and caregiving helplessness has been questioned.

    “The validity of self-report measures to assess parenting representations such as parental reflective functioning and caregiving helplessness has been questioned [17, 64, 65]”

    From Optimizing parenting and child outcomes following parent–child interaction therapy – toddler: a randomized controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [65]

    The Abstract and General Discussion question the validity of the Reflective Functioning Questionnaire, a self-report measure of reflective functioning. But the paper addresses mentalizing generally, not self-report measures of parenting representations specifically; it does not establish validity concerns about parental reflective functioning or caregiving helplessness measures. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. ch51 · DOI
  2. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2019). Mplus User's Guide. 8 th Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
  3. Ehrenthal, J. C., Dinger, U., Schauenburg, H., Horsch, L., Dahlbender, R. W., & Gierk, B. (2015). Entwicklung einer Zwölf-Item-Version des OPD-Strukturfragebogens (OPD-SFK) [Development of a 12-item version of the OPD-Structure Questionnaire (OPD-SQS)]. Zeitschrift für Psychosomatische Medizin und Psychotherapie, 61, 262-274. https://doi.org/10.13109/zptm.2015.61.3.262 · DOI
  4. Zimmermann, J., Benecke, C., Hörz, S., Rentrop, M., Peham, D., Bock, A., Wallner, T., Schauenburg, H., Frommer, J., Huber, D., Clarkin, J. F., & Dammann, G. (2013). Validierung einer deutschsprachigen 16- Item-Version des Inventars der Persönlichkeitsorganisation (IPO-16) [Validity of a German 16-item- version of the Inventory of Personality Organization (IPO-16)]. Diagnostica, 59, 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/ · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Müller, S., Wendt, L. P., Spitzer, C., Masuhr, O., Back, S. N., & Zimmermann, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Kassel (DE)
  • Universitätsmedizin Rostock (DE)
  • Asklepios Fachklinikum Tiefenbrunn (DE)
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Müller, Sascha
  • Wendt, Leon P.
Venue
Journal of Personality Assessment
Published
2021-10-01
Volume
104
Issue
5
Pages
613-627
ISSN
  • 0022-3891 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7752
OpenAlex
W3161900958
Cited by
138
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 7
FWCI
12.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Personality Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • World Health Organization
  • Universität Heidelberg
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Keywords
reflective functioning, mentalization, personality pathology, psychopathology, emotional lability, impulsivity, convergent and discriminant validity, self-report measures, latent dimensionality
MeSH terms
Mentalization, Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Personality Disorders, Surveys and Questionnaires, 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