A Critical Evaluation of the Reflective Functioning Questionnaire

Abstract

<p>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.</p>

Construct Validity of the Mentalization Scale (MentS) Within a Mixed Psychiatric Sample

“…Dimitrijević et al (Müller et al, 2013 ) developed a 28-item self-report measure to assess the ability to mentalize, the Mentalization Scale (MentS), which assesses the general RF as well as the three distinct dimensions (i.e., Self-Oriented RF, Other-Oriented RF, and Motivation for RF). Although it has good psychometric evidence and a complex convergent and divergent validity, it lacks a convergent validity with the RFS.…”

“…The RFQ cannot claim to represent a holistic operationalization for the RF. Müller et al ( 2013 ) highlighted that most items of the RFQ had a strong focus on self-orientated mentalizing and were more related to understanding the own behavior of oneself than feelings, wishes, or intentions. Both the RFQ and the MentS focus on the partial aspects of mentalizing but on different dimensions.…”

Development and Validation of the Certainty About Mental States Questionnaire (CAMSQ): A Self-Report Measure of Mentalizing Oneself and Others

“…The Reflective Functioning Questionnaire (RFQ;Fonagy et al, 2016) has emerged as a popular tool for assessing mentalizing by self-report. The RFQ is intended to measure both hypo-and hypermentalizing but critical concerns have been raised with regard to its validity for assessing hypermentalizing in particular (Müller et al, 2020). Although there is ample evidence on its associations with psychopathology and personality pathology, it is mostly limited to low certainty about mental states as an indicator of hypomentalizing (e.g., de Meulemeester et al, 2017;Fonagy et al, 2016;Müller et al, 2020;Spitzer, Zimmermann, et al, 2021).…”

“…The RFQ is intended to measure both hypo-and hypermentalizing but critical concerns have been raised with regard to its validity for assessing hypermentalizing in particular (Müller et al, 2020). Although there is ample evidence on its associations with psychopathology and personality pathology, it is mostly limited to low certainty about mental states as an indicator of hypomentalizing (e.g., de Meulemeester et al, 2017;Fonagy et al, 2016;Müller et al, 2020;Spitzer, Zimmermann, et al, 2021). Further mentalizing questionnaires such as the Mentalization Questionnaire (MZQ; Hausberg et al, 2012) and the Mentalization Scale (MentS; Dimitrijević et al, 2018) are available, but comparatively little is known about their validity and they are not intended to assess hypermentalizing but rather mentalizing problems in general.…”

Mapping established psychopathology scales onto the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP)

“…Moreover, such measures sometimes have unclear conceptual boundaries (e.g., Fried, 2017) and suffer similar limitations as categorical taxonomies. Consequently, the discriminant validity of traditional self-report measures can be questioned (e.g., Müller et al, 2020), when it is not clear whether they can be clearly distinguished from higher-order psychopathology dimensions due to their empirical overlap. In this sense, it is possible that selfreport measures of psychopathology could reflect more general forms of psychological impairment (i.e., as reflected in HiTOP spectra or superspectra).…”