MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410851317 · doi:10.1080/00207284.2025.2497237

Therapeutic Mentalization in Group Therapy: Development and Preliminary Validation of a Measure of Experienced Mentalization

2025· article· en· W4410851317 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Paul L. Hewitt, David Kealy, Anna Kristen, Martin M. Smith, Danielle S. Molnar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Group Psychotherapy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMentalizationPsychologyPsychotherapistGroup psychotherapyMeasure (data warehouse)Clinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our paper reports on the development and psychometric properties of the Therapeutic Mentalization Scale for Group Therapy (TMS-GT). The TMS-GT is an 11-item self-report measure designed to assess individuals’ experiences of having been mentalized in group therapy. Two combined samples of adults (n = 157; Mage = 28.4, SD = 12.1) participating in separate outpatient group psychotherapy treatments completed the TMS-GT posttreatment, with a subsample (n = 87) completing the TMS-GT again 3 months later and the other subsample (n = 70) completing measures of group psychotherapy processes and psychiatric symptoms. Multilevel exploratory factor analysis identified the two-factor structure of the TMS-GT, reflecting two dimensions of the experience of having been mentalized: mentalized attunement and mentalized continuity. The two subscales demonstrated adequate internal consistency and temporal stability. Moreover, additional psychometric findings provided further support for the validity of the TMS-GT. Overall, preliminary analyses suggest that the TMS-GT appears to be a reliable and valid measure of the experience of being mentalized among adults participating in outpatient group therapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.460
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Group PsychotherapySame topicPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207