Four-Item Mentalising Index

Clutterbuck, Rachel A; Callan, Mitchell J.; Taylor, Emily C.; Livingston, Lucy Anne; Shah, Punit

doi:10.1037/t79080-000

Cited by 5 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Gollwitzer et al (2019) and Huang et al (2021), the number of participants who met the incorrect ≥7 AQ10 cut-off was less than half the number of participants who met the correct ≥6 cut-off (56% and 53% lower respectively). A similar pattern was found across the remaining datasets, with 18% fewer participants meeting the incorrect ≥7 cut-off in Rogge (2021), and 16% fewer participants meeting the ≥7 cut-off in Clutterbuck et al (2021) and Livingston et al (2020; see Table 1 for frequencies and means).…”

Section: Analysis and Resultssupporting

confidence: 66%

“…This enabled exploration of which cut-off was more predictive of clinically diagnosed participants (Figure 1A). In Rogge (2021) and Clutterbuck et al (2021), group membership based on the incorrect ≥7 AQ10 cut-off was significantly different from group membership according to autism diagnostic status, χ 2 (1) = 7.09, p = .008, and χ 2 (1) = 8.08, p = .004, respectively. However, group membership based on the correct ≥6 cut-off was not significantly different from that according to a clinical diagnosis in either study, χ 2 (1) = 0.18, p = .67, and χ 2 (1) = 0.98, p = .32.…”

Section: Descriptive Statisticsmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…Ethical approval was granted by the local ethics committee. Five datasets were selected based on the availability of AQ10 data (Gollwitzer et al, 2019, Huang et al, 2021Rogge, 2021;Clutterbuck et al, 2021;Livingston et al, 2020). The studies included clinical and non-clinical participants, and all used the correct ≥6 cut-off value where appropriate: Gollwitzer et al (2019) examined the relationship between autism and social psychological knowledge in a sample of 6595 non-clinical participants, who completed the AQ10 and a social psychological quiz.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Autism was associated with reduced sensitivity to sunkcost bias during judgement decisions. Clutterbuck et al (2021) investigated the link between the AQ10 and the Four Item Mentalising Index (FIMI), a measure of understanding others' mental states (i.e., mentalising). The study included 102 participants with a clinical diagnosis of autism ( 62RUNNING HEAD: AQ10 CUT-OFFS 6 female, aged 18-68) and 183 non-autistic individuals (101 female, aged 18-73).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, because data on autism diagnostic status were available in Rogge (2021), Clutterbuck et al (2021), andLivingston et al (2020), we tested how groups split based on the different cut-offs aligned with group membership according to a clinical diagnosis of autism. This enabled exploration of which cut-off was more predictive of clinically diagnosed participants (Figure 1A).…”

Section: Descriptive Statisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Using Incorrect Cut-Off Values in Autism Screening Tools: The Consequences for Psychological Science

Waldren¹,

Livingston²,

Clutterbuck³

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 10-item Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ10) is frequently used to screen for high autistic traits in clinical practice and research. For the past decade, however, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has recommended the use of an incorrect ≥7 cut-off value, instead of the correct ≥6 value specified in the original research on the AQ10. Our inspection of the literature suggests that this discrepancy has proliferated across research, generating confusion over the past decade. After examining use of the AQ10 cut-offs in previous research, we drew on five datasets (overall N = 7612) to empirically test the consequences of applying different AQ10 cut-off values for the interpretation of research. Our analyses showed that a one-point difference in the AQ10 cut-off – the error made in the NICE guidelines – significantly changed the effect sizes of autism-related associations in 3 of the five datasets by up to 59.75% and made the relationships non-significant in two datasets. This demonstrates that the (mis)use of the AQ10 cut-off can be consequential for research, hence we discuss the urgent need to establish and apply appropriate autism screening cut-off values in future research.

show abstract

Section: Analysis and Resultssupporting

confidence: 66%

Section: Descriptive Statisticsmentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Descriptive Statisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Using Incorrect Cut-Off Values in Autism Screening Tools: The Consequences for Psychological Science

Waldren¹,

Livingston²,

Clutterbuck³

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Do autistic traits predict pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors, and climate change belief?

Taylor

Livingston

Callan

et al. 2021

Journal of Environmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It looks like construct validity, but look again: Comment on Clutterbuck et al. (2021) and recommendations for test developers in the broad “empathy” domain.

Murphy¹,

Hall²,

Duong³

2022

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conceptual flaws can undermine even rigorous test development efforts, especially in the broad empathy and social cognition domains, which are characterized by measure proliferation and inconsistently used construct terms. We discuss these issues, focusing on a new instrument of “mentalizing” as a case study. Across several studies, Clutterbuck et al. (2021a) developed the Four-Item Mentalising Index (FIMI). They described it as the first self-report measure of mentalizing ability and suggested that it offers substantial advances for research and assessment. As we demonstrate with conceptual arguments and empirical data, the FIMI embodies several major problems that are common in this area of research. Using the FIMI as a case study, we underline the importance for test developers of attending to the nonnegotiable necessity of discriminant validity analyses, the challenge of choosing appropriate convergent validity measures, and the difficulties of navigating the jingle-jangle jungle of empathy and social cognition construct terms.

show abstract

Four-Item Mentalising Index

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Using Incorrect Cut-Off Values in Autism Screening Tools: The Consequences for Psychological Science

Using Incorrect Cut-Off Values in Autism Screening Tools: The Consequences for Psychological Science

Do autistic traits predict pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors, and climate change belief?

It looks like construct validity, but look again: Comment on Clutterbuck et al. (2021) and recommendations for test developers in the broad “empathy” domain.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About