The catcher in the mind: validation of the brief-mentalized affectivity scale for adolescents in the Italian population

Abstract

The concept of mentalized affectivity (MA) encompasses the dimensions of identifying, processing, and expressing emotions and describes the process of making sense of and reevaluating one’s affects in light of autobiographical memory. This construct was developed within the theoretical framework of mentalization and, due to its interpersonal nature, added further complexity to the emotion regulation construct. This research aimed to examine the factor structure and psychometric properties of the Brief-Mentalized Affectivity Scale for adolescents (B-MAS-A) on an Italian sample of young people (aged 13-19 years). Data were collected using non-probabilistic sampling and an online survey. Participants were asked to complete a large battery of instruments, including the B-MAS-A, the Toronto Alexithymia Scale, the Reflective Functioning Questionnaire, the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire, the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, and the General Self-Efficacy Scale. In study 1, factor analyses carried out on a total sample of 566 adolescents identified 3 distinct dimensions of the same components of MA found in the adult population: i) identifying; ii) processing; iii) expressing emotions. The subscales showed excellent internal consistency. Study 2 (involving a subsample of 288 participants) demonstrated good levels of construct and criterion validity. These results confirm that the B-MAS-A represents a valid and robust instrument for assessing the complex and multifaceted characteristics of MA in adolescents. The B-MAS-A can make a significant contribution to clinical practice and research and encourage systematic studies on MA in psychotherapy, taking into account the developmental stage of adolescence.

Iranian adaptation of the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ): Validity, reliability, discriminant ability, and sex invariance

“…Nonetheless, the resulting structure showed an acceptable fit in subsequent CFA. Second, despite inconclusive evidence regarding the criterion‐related validity of ET, most studies indicate nonsignificant or negligible associations between ET and relevant constructs (Benzi, Carone, et al., 2023 ; Benzi, Fontana, et al., 2023 ; Campbell et al., 2021 ; Kampling et al., 2022 , 2024 ; Liotti, Milesi, et al., 2023 ; Tanzilli et al., 2022 ), with a minority substantiating its validity (Liotti, Fiorini Bincoletto, et al., 2023 ; Riedl et al., 2024 ; Riedl, Rothmund, et al., 2023 ), and a handful of investigations presenting mixed findings (Brauner et al., 2023 ; De Coninck et al., 2023 ; Hauschild et al., 2023 ; Parolin et al., 2023 ). Third, although good test–retest reliability was found for all three subscales, the majority of the findings demonstrated questionable internal consistency for EM (see Table 1 ).…”