Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38974920›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2024

Minding mentalizing - convergent validity of the Mentalization Breakdown Interview.

Dag Anders Ulvestad, Merete Selsbakk Johansen, Elfrida Hartveit Kvarstein, Geir Pedersen, Theresa Wilberg

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT04157907 (Reflective Functioning and Psychotherapy Processes in Mentalization Based Therapy), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

NCT04157907 unknown statusnot on this map

Reflective Functioning and Psychotherapy Processes in Mentalization Based Therapy

TypeobservationalSponsorOslo University HospitalRan2019 to 2025Enrolled60ConditionsBorderline Personality DisorderArmsMentalization based therapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Dag Anders UlvestadOutpatient Clinic for Specialized Treatment of Personality Disorders, Section for Personality Psychiatry and Specialized Treatments, Department for National and Regional Functions, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Merete Selsbakk JohansenOutpatient Clinic for Specialized Treatment of Personality Disorders, Section for Personality Psychiatry and Specialized Treatments, Department for National and Regional Functions, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Elfrida Hartveit KvarsteinSection for Personality Psychiatry and Specialized Treatments, Department for National and Regional Functions, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Geir PedersenNetwork for Personality Disorders, Section for Personality Psychiatry and Specialized Treatments, Department for National and Regional Functions, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Theresa WilbergInstitute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Mentalizing difficulties are central to borderline personality disorder (BPD), have severe consequences, and are an explicit focus in mentalization-based treatment. The significance of mentalizing capacity as a predictor or mediator of change is however still uncertain due to a scarcity of research. The Mentalization Breakdown Interview (MBI) was developed as a time saving tool for studying psychotherapy processes and outcome in borderline pathology. This study aimed to investigate the convergent validity of reflective functioning (RF) ratings based on the MBI (MBI-RF) by a comparison with the gold standard, i.e., RF assessments based on the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI-RF). A secondary aim was to investigate how MBI-RF relates to core symptoms of BPD, levels of functional impairment and symptom distress compared with AAI-RF. Method: Forty-five patients with BPD or significant BPD traits were included. MBI-RF and AAI-RF were rated using the Reflective Functioning Scale. Levels of MBI-RF and AAI-RF and the correlation between the measures were calculated, as well as their associations with the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, Levels of Personality Functioning-Brief Form 2.0, Work and Social Adjustment Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire, Depression, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, self-harm, suicide attempts, and PD diagnostics. Results: The correlation between MBI-RF and AAI-RF was 0.79 ( Conclusions: The study provides support for the convergent validity of the MBI as a BPD-focused RF assessment method. The MBI has the potential as a time saving, reliable and valid method to be applied in treatment research on patients with borderline pathology. The results indicate that measures of MBI-RF and AAI-RF are different from clinical symptoms. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04157907.

Indexed as

assessment methodborderline personality disordermentalization breakdownmentalizingreflective functioningvalidation

Identifiers

PMID38974920
PMCPMC11224478

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.