Cited by 406Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFace Recognition and Perception

The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” test: Systematic review of psychometric properties and a validation study in Italy

Open access
Vellante, Marcello, Baron-Cohen, Simon, Melis, Mariangela, Marrone, Matteo, Petretto, Donatella Rita, Masala, Carmelo, Preti, Antonio·2013·Cognitive Neuropsychiatry

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The "Reading the Mind in the Eyes" test (henceforth, Eyes test) is a simple but advanced Theory of Mind test, and it is widely used across different cultures. This study assessed the reliability and construct (convergent and discriminant) validity of the Eyes test in Italy. METHODS: A sample of 18- to 32-year-old undergraduate students of both sexes (N=200, males=46%) were invited to fill in the Italian version of the Eyes test, the Empathy Quotient (EQ), the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS), and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (SDS). RESULTS: Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) was .605. Confirmatory factor analysis provided evidence for a unidimensional model, with maximal weighted internal consistency reliability=.719. Test-retest reliability for the Eyes test, as measured by intraclass correlation coefficient, was .833 (95% confidence interval=.745 to .902). Females scored significantly higher than males on both the Eyes test and the EQ, replicating earlier work. Those participants who scored lower than 30 on the EQ (n=10) also scored lower on the Eyes test than those who did not (p<.05). Eyes test scores were not related to social desirability. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the validity of the Eyes test. Both internal consistency and test-retest stability were good for the Italian version of the Eyes test.

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 · 10.1080/13546805.2012.721728

Cites

129 of 129 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 Reading the Mind in the Eyes test (RMET) has good internal consistency and test-retest reliability.

    “The test has good internal consistency and test-retest reliability [60, 61].”

    From A 'choice', an 'addiction', a way 'out of the lost': Exploring self-injury in autistic people without intellectual disability (2019) · cites this paper as [60]

    The Abstract’s Conclusions say both properties were good for the Italian version of the Eyes test, and the Results report test–retest reliability of .833. The claim omits that version-specific qualification; the Introduction also notes that earlier studies reported mixed findings on internal consistency. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The results of a confirmatory factor analysis suggest that the division of items into an affect specific factor is a poor fit to the data.

    “However, the results of a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) suggest that the division of items into an affect specific factor is a poor fit to the data (Vellante et al., 2012).”

    From A psychometric analysis of the reading the mind in the eyes test: toward a brief form for research and applied settings (2015) · cites this paper as Vellante et al., 2012

    The Results (Factorial analysis of the Eyes test) report poor fit for a three-factor model grouping items by positive, negative, and neutral valence. That supports the general point that an affect-based division fit poorly, but the paper did not test the singular affect-specific factor described in the claim. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The internal consistency of the RMET is modest, with Cronbach's alpha varying between 0.37 and 0.61 across cultural adaptations.

    “The internal consistency of the RMET is modest, with Cronbach’s alpha varying between 0.37 and 0.61 across cultural adaptations (Khorashad et al., 2015; Vellante et al., 2013).”

    From ‘Theory of Mind’ is not Theory of Emotion: a cautionary note on the reading the Mind in the Eyes test (2016) · cites this paper as Vellante et al., 2013

    The Introduction describes low internal coherence in two prior Eyes-test studies, and the Results > Reliability analysis reports Cronbach’s alpha of .605 for the Italian study (page numbers unavailable). The Discussion reports values of .58, .60, .63, and .70 across studies, but does not support the claimed .37–.61 range across cultural adaptations. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The Eyes Test does not meet assumptions of normality.

    “The Eyes Test also does not meet assumptions of normality (Söderstrand and Almkvist, 2012; Vellante et al., 2012).”
  • The test-retest reliability of the Eyes Test is acceptable.

    “However, the test-retest reliability of the measure is acceptable (Hallerbäck et al., 2009; Yildirim et al., 2011; Vellante et al., 2012; Prevost et al., 2014; Khorashad et al., 2015).”

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: 2

  1. Baron-Cohen S Wheelwright S Spong A Scahill V Lawson J Are intuitive physics and intuitive psychology independent? Journal of Developmental and Learning Disorders 2001 5 47 78
  2. Bland JM Altman DG Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha British Medical Journal 1997 314 572

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vellante, M., Baron-Cohen, S., Melis, M., Marrone, M., Petretto, D. R., Masala, C., & Preti, A.
Affiliations
University of Cagliari (IT)
Corresponding author
Preti, Antonio
Venue
Cognitive Neuropsychiatry
Published
2013-07
Volume
18
Issue
4
Pages
326-354
ISSN
  • 1354-6805 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0619
OpenAlex
W2070605229
Cited by
406
References
129
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 10
FWCI
1.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Neuropsychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • UNICA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (University of Cagliari) (submittedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (091774)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
Keywords
Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test, theory of mind, psychometric validation, Italian adaptation, reliability statistics, construct validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity, empathy, alexithymia, social desirability, gender differences
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Affective Symptoms, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Empathy, Eye, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychometrics, Social Desirability, Reproducibility of Results, Sample Size, 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