Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38344460›Full record

ArticleClinical neuropsychiatry2023

Preliminary Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Metacognition Brief Rating Scale: An Informant form of the Metacognition Self-Assessment Scale.

Roberto Pedone, Antonio Semerari

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical neuropsychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Roberto PedoneDeparment of Psychology, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Italy.
Antonio SemerariThird Center of Cognitive Psychotherapy, Rome, Italy roberto.pedone@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Metacognition has been conceptualized as the ability to reflect on self and others' mental states and representations, including affects, beliefs, and intentions. The Metacognition Self-Assessment Scale (MSAS) was developed to assess various aspects of metacognition, aiming to leverage its potential applications in fields like clinical psychology and psychotherapy. However, a concern associated with MSAS is whether individuals can accurately self-report difficulties in identifying and describing mental states, both their own and others', when they lack these abilities. In response to this challenge, we aimed to develop and validate an alternative reporting tool, the Metacognition Brief Rating Scale (MBRS), which serves as an informant form of MSAS. Method: The MBRS was administered to 384 individuals randomly recruited from the general population. We employed a methodological strategy based on three successive steps. In the preliminary step, items from the MSAS were rewritten into a third-person version by the authors. In the second step, we examined whether the four-factor structure was congruent between the informant-report (MBRS) and the self-report (MSAS) using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In the last step, we examined and compared the psychometric properties of the MBRS and MSAS items, including item characteristics and internal reliability analyses. Results: The psychometric properties (items and scales) of both versions were found to be adequate, and the four-factor structure of the MBRS was supported. The correlation between the two versions was statistically significant, and the factor structures were similar. Conclusions: The results support the psychometric properties of the MBRS. However, further research is needed, especially in larger non-clinical and clinical samples, to replicate and extend these findings.

Indexed as

assessmentinformant rating scalemetacognition

Identifiers

PMID38344460
PMCPMC10852410

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.