Mentalization in children and mothers in the context of trauma: An initial study of the validity of the Child Reflective Functioning Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the validity of the Child Reflective Functioning Scale (CRFS: Ensink, Target, & Oandason, 2013, Child reflective functioning scale scoring manual: for application to the Child Attachment Interview. London, UK: Anna Freud Centre - University College London), a measure designed to assess reflective functioning (RF) or mentalization during middle childhood. Participants were 94 mother-child dyads divided into two subgroups; 46 dyads where children had histories of intrafamilial (n = 22 dyads) or extrafamilial (n = 24 dyads) sexual abuse, and a community control group composed of 48 mother-child dyads. RF of children and their mothers was assessed using videotaped and transcribed data gathered using the Child Attachment Interview and the Parent Development Interview (PDI: Slade, Aber, Bresi, Berger, & Kaplan, 2004, The parent development interview-Revised. New York, NY: The City University of New York). The findings indicate that the CRFS proved reliable, with excellent intraclass correlation coefficients for general RF, as well as RF regarding self and others. Significant differences in RF were found between sexually abused children and the control group, and also between children who had experienced intrafamilial and extrafamilial sexual abuse. This provides support for the discriminant validity of the CRFS. Furthermore, maternal RF was associated with child RF. Both abuse and maternal RF made significant contributions to predicting children's RF regarding themselves, but child sexual abuse was the only variable that made a significant contribution to explaining variance in children's RF regarding others.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".