The DOI matches its Crossref record; 130 of the 130 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” test: Systematic review of psychometric properties and a validation study in Italy
Open accessAbstract
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.
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 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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe 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 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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The Eyes Test also does not meet assumptions of normality (Söderstrand and Almkvist, 2012; 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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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).”
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
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
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03193146 · Cited by 65,971
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005 · Cited by 27,200
Testing Structural Equation Models.
Mueller, C. W., Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1994) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2074955 · Cited by 14,211
Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach.
Davis, M. H. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113 · Cited by 10,272
EQS : structural equations program manual
Bentler, P. M. (1989) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 9,669
Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?
Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00076512 · Cited by 8,743
A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960) · Journal of Consulting Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0047358 · Cited by 8,686
Testing Structural Equation Models.
Clogg, C. C., Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1995) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2580595 · Cited by 8,246
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Adams R. B., 2009, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 98
- Baron-Cohen S., 2004, Questione di cervello: La differenza essenziale tra donne e uomini
- Baron-Cohen S., 2001, Journal of Developmental and Learning Disorders, 5, 47
- Izard C. E., 1971, The face of emotion
- Maggini C., 2004, Acta Bio Medica Ateneo Parmense, 75, 40
- Yildirim E. A., 2011, Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 22, 177
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Oakley, B. F. M., Brewer, R., Bird, G., & Catmur, C. (2016) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/abn0000182 · Cited by 431
Empirical failures of the claim that autistic people lack a theory of mind.
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Yergeau, M. (2019) · Archives of Scientific Psychology · doi:10.1037/arc0000067 · Cited by 295
Leisure reading and social cognition: A meta-analysis.
Mumper, M. L., & Gerrig, R. J. (2017) · Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts · doi:10.1037/aca0000089 · Cited by 249
Baron-Cohen, S., Bowen, D. C., Holt, R. J., Allison, C., Auyeung, B., Lombardo, M. V., Smith, P., & Lai, M.-C. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0136521 · Cited by 238
Self-citationOlderbak, S., Wilhelm, O., Olaru, G., Geiger, M., Brenneman, M. W., & Roberts, R. D. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01503 · Cited by 228
Metadata
- 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
- ORCID
- Preti, Antonio
- Venue
- Cognitive Neuropsychiatry
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-07
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 326-354
- ISSN
- 1354-6805 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-0619
- PMC
- PMC6345369
- 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
- green
- europepmc.org
- 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
