Measuring mentalizing in youth: further validation of the reflective functioning questionnaire for youth (RFQY-13)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study investigated the psychometric properties, including the factor structure, validity, and reliability of the 13-item Reflective Function Questionnaire for Youth (RFQY-13), using a new scoring system. Method: A community sample of 414 adolescents and a clinical sample of 83 adolescents (aged 12-21) completed the RFQY, the Borderline Personality Features Scale for Children (BPFS-C), the Beck Youth Inventories (BYI), the Child Behavior Checklist-Youth Self Report (CBCL-YSR) and the Movie for the Assessment of Social Cognition (MASC). Results: Using the new scoring system, our results demonstrated configural and metric invariance, as well as adequate reliability and validity across both samples for the two-factor structure of the RFQY. The Uncertainty subscale also showed strong associations with psychopathology. Discussion: The findings show that the RFQY-13, when used with the new coding system, has good psychometric properties and is a reliable measure of mentalizing for adolescents and young adults. We discuss clinical implications, limitations and future directions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".