In previous works we demonstrated the utility of the REF scale for the assessment referential thinking (Rodríguez-Testal et al., 2001) although it wasn´t specific for patients with psychotic disorder (Rodríguez-Testal et al., 2008). Objectives and hypotheses: We analyzed the psychometric properties of reliability and validity of the REF scale. We compared the differences in referential thinking between subjects with and without psychopathology. In the patient group we will not obtain differences in referential-thinking between diagnosis types of Axis I, Axis II, or patients with diagnoses on both axes. Methods: Participants: 120 subjects, 70 patients attending a private center of clinic psychology, 64.3% women, mean age = 35.21 (SD = 10.5) and 50 controls selected from the normal population, 54 % women, mean age = 33.48 (SD = 10.83). It was applied a cross design for a correlation method of comparison between groups. All the analysis were accepted at p< .05. Results: We reached adequate internal consistency (Cronbach´s alpha= .90, split-half reliability= .83 and .82). The test-restest reliability was significant (mean interval of 44 days). There are significant differences in referential thinking between subjects with and without psychopathology (t=3.8; p=.001). There are significant differences in referential thinking between types of diagnoses (F=3.99; p=.001). Conclusions: The REF scale has adequate psychometric properties (reliability and validity). It discriminated between patients and no-patients, and between the different types of diagnoses, especially for those who suffer psychotic disorders.

AntecedentsIn a previous study (Senín-Calderón et al., 2010) we observed that the REF scale of referential thinking (Lenzenweger et al., 1997) didn’t discriminate among different mental disorders.Objectives and hypothesesWe try to verify if self-references in various disorders are related to the severity of psychopathology (patients from public hospital and a private clinical). We predict that there will be differences between patients and controls, but not between the clinical samples. Psychotic disorders will be characterized by a significantly greater presence of self-references.MethodsParticipants: 287 subjects, 47 patients from a private clinical center, 57.4% women (mean age = 35.02, SD = 12.69), 30 patients from a public hospital, 53.3% women (38.36 years, SD = 9.53), and 210 controls selected from the general population, 50.5% women (33.80 years, SD = 11.79). Cross-sectional design, correlation method. All analysis were accepted at p < .05.ResultsThere are significant differences in self-references between patients and controls in frequency (t (285) = 2.33, p = . 021) and intensity (t (83.98) = 3.59, p = . 001). No significant differences between patients groups (p>.05) (REF-intensity without homogeneity, p < .05). No significant differences in self-references between types of diagnoses except psychotic patients versus adjustment disorder (frequency and intensity).ConclusionsSelf-references are highlighted in psychosis but, with the exception of adjustment disorders, doesn’t discriminate between personality, mood or anxiety disorders. Differences are more related to the clinical severity (BPRS) than with referential thinking.

In previous works we used the REF scale of referential thinking as criterion of therapeutic evolution (Benítez-Hernández et al., 2006; Rodríguez-Testal et al., 2009). Objectives and hypotheses: We designed a group therapy of social skills for monitoring and modification of the referential thinking. We predict a decrease of referential thinking (frequency and intensity) both in pretest and posttest measures for each session, as in the progress of the all sessions as a whole.

Previously, we showed the usefulness of the REF scale to assess referential thinking (Rodríguez-Testal et al., 2001; 2009) although it isn't specific for patients with psychotic disorders (Rodríguez-Testal et al., 2008). Objectives: This instrumental work aims to replicate the exploratory factor analysis about the Referential Thinking Scale (REF scale) already developed by Lenzenweger et al. (1997) to examine its multidimensionality. Methods: Participants: The analyzed sample consisted of 193 participants (67.36% women, mean 28.36 years old, SD = 10.35), of whom 131 were patients. Design, materials and procedure: We used the REF-scale (Lenzenweger et al., 1997) adapted to Spanish language. This questionnaire consists of 34 items that assess the frequency of referential thinking on a dichotomic scale (true/false). We used SPSS 15.0 to conduct a principal-components factor analysis with a varimax and oblimin rotation. Results: The principal-components factor analysis method led to 5 factors that explain 37.35% of variance for the rotated solution. Because of inter-factors correlations are small, we considered these factors as being independent. The five factors were labeled as: Laughter, Commentaries (it accounted for 8.92% of variance); Guilt (it accounted for 8.77% of variance); Causal Explanations (it accounted for 7.17% of variance); Songs, Newspapers, Books (it accounted for 6.44% of variance); and Attention, Appearance (it accounted for 6.04% of variance). Conclusions: It's obtained the five factors isolated in previous studies (Lenzenweger et al., 1997; Rodríguez-Testal et al., 2001). However, the multidimensionality of the REF scale must be viewed with caution because of a small percentage of explained variance.

Antecedents: Kernberg's classification of personality disorders (1987) differentiates psychic organization according to the severity: neurotic, borderline and psychotic. Lenzenweger et al. (2001) used a reduced version of IPO with 57 items developed by Kernberg and Clarkin (1995). Objectives and hypothesis: IPO was applied in a sample of patients and a control group. We expected to find an adequate reliability and validity of the inventory. Scales adequately distinguish content borderline, neurotic and psychotic. Method: Participants: 288 subjects (64.9% women), 116 patients attended to private clinical practice from February 2007 to September 2009. 172 control subjects matched by sex, social class and sincerity (EPI). Transversal design, a measure collective in the comparison group and individual in patients ones. A group of patients was selected for the retest (n = 88). Instruments. We applied IPO, the BPRS, MCMI-II and MIPS. Diagnoses according to DSM-IV-TR. Results: Internal consistency (Cronbach) was adequate for the three scales: .83; .90 and .89. The testretest reliability was correct for a mean interval of 44 days (.78; .81; .78). The validity analyses differed between diagnostic groups in Axis I (p< .05), but not in the clusters of personality (p>.05). No differences in BPRS with scale of borderline, but yes with neurotic and psychotic ones. The MCMI-II was properly differentiated by the three scales of the IPO. Conclusions: The IPO is an useful scale with reliability and validity. The main drawback concerns certain aspects of the borderline scale.