Validation of the Three-Factor Reflective Functioning Questionnaire for Youth in a Chinese Adolescent Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study focused on the validation of the Three-Factor Reflective Functioning Questionnaire for Youth(RFQY) within a sample of Chinese adolescents. Patients and Methods: All the items of the RFQY were translated into Chinese language through the process of translation and back translation. A total of 532 adolescents aged between 12-20 years completed the Chinese version of RFQY, McLean Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder (MSI-BPD), Basic Empathy Scale (BES), and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). Results: (2.354), SRMR (0.053), GFI (0.930), CFI (0.921), TLI (0.910), and RMSEA (0.050), all conformed to the requirements of psychometrics. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the three factors, "uncertainty/confusion", "interest/curiosity", and "excessive certainty", were 0.820, 0.673, and 0.839, respectively, with test-retest reliability scores of 0.751, 0.643, and 0.764. A significant positive correlation was found between uncertainty/confusion and symptoms of borderline personality disorder (BPD), particularly in adolescents with high BPD traits. Excessive certainty was positively correlated with unstable interpersonal relationships, while the interest/curiosity factor shows no significant correlation with BPD symptoms. The uncertainty/confusion factor demonstrates a complex relationship with empathy, correlating positively with affective empathy but negatively with cognitive empathy. The uncertainty/confusion factor shows a significant positive correlation with alexithymia, while the factor of excessive certainty demonstrates the opposite effect. Additionally, a significant negative correlation exists between the interest/curiosity factor and the externally oriented thinking. Conclusion: This study validates the Chinese version of the Reflective Functioning Questionnaire for Youth (RFQY), demonstrating its reliability and validity in assessing reflective functioning among Chinese adolescents. This enhances the understanding of reflective functioning and its role in adolescent mental health.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".