The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Critical Evaluation of the Reflective Functioning Questionnaire (RFQ)
Open accessPublished 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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
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.
Citations
Cites
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2000) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 355,893
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
American Psychiatric Association (2013) · doi:10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 · Cited by 116,369
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788
The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x · Cited by 44,910
lavaan : An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling
Rosseel, Y. (2012) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i02 · Cited by 27,955
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM)
Leong, F. T. L. (2008) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781412963978.n182 · Cited by 10,861
Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004) · Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment · doi:10.1023/b:joba.0000007455.08539.94 · Cited by 8,942 · cited 5×
“Internal consistency of the DERS Impulse Control Difficulties scale was a ¼ .90.”
BackgroundInfluentialBaron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1023/b:jadd.0000022607.19833.00 · Cited by 4,093
The PHQ-15: Validity of a New Measure for Evaluating the Severity of Somatic Symptoms
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2002) · Psychosomatic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00006842-200203000-00008 · Cited by 3,415
The Rediscovery of Bifactor Measurement Models
Reise, S. P. (2012) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273171.2012.715555 · Cited by 2,112 · cited 1×
“Second, bifactor models with uncorrelated general and specific factors allow for a clear partitioning of variance in the presence of multidimensionality and a strong general factor (Reise, 2012), as is the case for the PID-5-BF, IPO-16, and OPD-SQS (Zimmermann et al., 2020).”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Franke H., 2000, The Brief Symptom Inventory – Deutsche Version
- Horowitz L. M., 2000, Inventar zur Erfassung interpersonaler Probleme: Deutsche Version; IIP-D
- Muthén L. K., 1998, Mplus user’s guide
- Spitzer C., 2021, Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, Medizinische Psychologie, 71, 124
- World Health Organization, 1998, Wellbeing measures in primary health care / The Depcare Project
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Müller, S., Wendt, L. P., & Zimmermann, J. (2021) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/10731911211061280 · Cited by 95
Self-citationLuyten, P., Campbell, C., Moser, M., & Fonagy, P. (2024) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102380 · Cited by 90
Woźniak‐Prus, M., Gambin, M., Cudo, A., & Sharp, C. (2022) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1080/00223891.2021.2014505 · Cited by 63
Measurement Properties of the Patient Health Questionnaire–15 and Somatic Symptom Scale–8
Hybelius, J., Kosic, A., Salomonsson, S., Wachtler, C., Wallert, J., Nordin, S., & Axelsson, E. (2024) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.46603 · Cited by 49
Natoli, A. P., Bach, B., Behn, A. J., Cottin, M., Gritti, E. S., Hutsebaut, J., Lamba, N., Corff, Y. L., Zimmermann, J., & Lapalme, M. (2022) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/pas0001176 · Cited by 44
Self-citation
Metadata
- 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
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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
- green
- doi.org
- 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
