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.

No abstract

The Reflective Functioning Questionnaire-8 (RFQ-8) is a short self-report measure of reflective functioning (i.e., the ability to understand mental states of both the self and others) that is presumed to capture individual differences in hypo- and hypermentalizing. Despite its broad acceptance by the field and its regular use in primary investigations of the construct, we argue that the validity of the measure is still not well established. The current research elaborates on why the proposed scoring procedure may be methodologically problematic, the item content might not sufficiently cover the full breadth of the mentalizing construct, and it is unclear whether the measure captures mentalizing processes in particular or rather general psychological impairment. In a clinical sample (N = 861) and a sample of young adults (N = 566), we explore these critical considerations and demonstrate that the RFQ-8 may assess a single latent dimension related to hypomentalizing, but provides little unique variance above and beyond broad dimensions of personality pathology and is unlikely to capture maladaptive forms of hypermentalizing. The findings cast doubt on the validity of the RFQ-8 as a measure of reflective functioning. Future research should increase validation efforts concerning the RFQ-8 or develop new measures of reflective functioning.

No abstract