ArticleBMC psychology2024
Validation of the english version of the Multidimensional Mentalizing Questionnaire (MMQ).
Article in BMC psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Empathy and Mentalizing of Mental Health Nurses: A Cross-Sectional Correlational Study.International journal of mental health nursing · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMentalizing refers to the ability to understand one's own and others' mental states. Mentalizing is considered a key component of social cognition and healthy personality development. A multinational assessment tools able to appraise the multidimensional and multifaceted aspects of this complex construct are needed.
objectiveThe present study had two aims: (a) validate an English version of the Multidimensional Mentalizing Questionnaire (MMQ, 33 items) which was designed to assess mentalizing based on an integrated and multilevel model of mentalizing; (b) explore the correlational relationships between the six dimensions of the MMQ and a set of sociodemographic, psycho-cognitive, mental health, and socio-functional variables.
methodsOverall, 1823 individuals (age: 19-76 years old [M = 45; SD = 16]; sex: male = 48.51%, female = 50.57%, non-binary = 0.9%) participated in an online survey. While the participants came from 77 different countries, most of them were residents in UK and USA (95%). Data analytics include confirmatory factorial analysis and Pearson correlations.
resultsThe CFA results validated the factorial structure of a 28-items MMQ-English version, with acceptable goodness of fit indices. Regarding the psychometric properties, the MMQ-English version showed good internal reliability and significant positive correlation with another scale designed to assess an analogue construct showing a fair convergent validity. The findings indicated that males, individuals with lower levels of education, lower socio-economic status, depressed, and with a higher score of loneliness are significantly more likely to report poor mentalizing compared with females, individuals with higher education level, greater SES, happier, and with lower scores of loneliness.
conclusionThe present study validated the English version of the MMQ.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.