Development and validation of a self-report measure assessing failures in the mentalization of trauma and adverse relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The way people process trauma and adverse relationships may be more predictive of subsequent adaptation than trauma exposure in itself. However, there is currently no self-report instrument assessing failures in the mentalization of trauma and adverse relationships. We developed the Failure to Mentalize Trauma Questionnaire (FMTQ) and evaluated its psychometric properties. The FMTQ is a 29-item self-report instrument designed to assess different indications of failures in the mentalization of trauma and adverse relationships. A total of 975 participants (84 % women; 37 % exposed to child maltreatment) were recruited in the course of larger research protocols on parenting. Participants completed the FMTQ and measures of childhood maltreatment, psychopathology (post-traumatic stress symptoms, dissociative symptoms, level of personality dysfunction), general mentalization and intimate partner violence. Exploratory factor analysis, supported by a confirmatory factor analysis, identified seven factors with good internal consistency that corresponded to different types of failures in the mentalization of trauma and adverse relationships and that loaded on a general factor. A dose-effect association was observed between the severity of childhood maltreatment, and the severity of failures in the mentalization of trauma and adverse relationships (rs = .49, p < .01). The FMTQ total score explained a significant proportion of variance in psychopathology and intimate partner violence, both in participants with histories of childhood maltreatment and participants without childhood maltreatment. The FMTQ is a promising, concise and efficient measure of failures in the mentalization of trauma and adverse relationships that may facilitate clinical screening and research with adults who experienced trauma.
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 | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".