2024
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102378
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Construct validity evidence reporting practices for the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test: A systematic scoping review

Wendy C. Higgins,
David M. Kaplan,
Eliane Deschrijver
et al.
Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 110 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, our study did not investigate possible ToM variations determined by age, symptomatology, nor severity of illness. Ultimately, we relied on RMET to preliminarily explore potential variations of ToM: psychometric properties of the test have been recently debated ( 85 ), despite the Italian validation study confirming its validity ( 54 ). Hence, these limitations contribute to the aforementioned preliminary and pilot nature of the current study, which should be further strengthened by recruiting a larger sample size, including adult subjects, with longitudinal design and a full set of rigorous social cognition assessment tools.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, our study did not investigate possible ToM variations determined by age, symptomatology, nor severity of illness. Ultimately, we relied on RMET to preliminarily explore potential variations of ToM: psychometric properties of the test have been recently debated ( 85 ), despite the Italian validation study confirming its validity ( 54 ). Hence, these limitations contribute to the aforementioned preliminary and pilot nature of the current study, which should be further strengthened by recruiting a larger sample size, including adult subjects, with longitudinal design and a full set of rigorous social cognition assessment tools.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, the reliability of established ToM assessments, such as the False Belief Test, Strange Stories, and the Reading the Mind in the Eye Test, has been increasingly questioned. These tests exhibit inconsistent effect sizes when compared to earlier, smaller-scale studies and show limited correlation with one another despite their aim of measuring the same ToM construct (Gernsbacher & Yergeau, 2019;Higgins et al, 2024;Schaafsma et al, 2015). Second, studies often fail to match autistic individuals with neurotypical controls based on language abilities in explicit tasks, i.e., requiring verbal responses or comprehension.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%