ArticleAssessment2026
Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test Scores Demonstrate Poor Structural Properties in Nine Large Non-Clinical Samples.
Article in Assessment, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of sensory processing sensitivity on subtle dynamic facial expression recognition and metacognitive awareness.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Alexithymia and Social Cognition in the General Population: Further Evidence on the Relationship with Theory of Mind, Emotion Recognition, and Empathy.Journal of Intelligence · 2026Article
- Teaching for Well-Being: The Mediating Roles of Social-Emotional Competence and Academic Buoyancy.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Parsing Interactive Social Cognition: Mentalizing Accuracy and Propensity in Dyadic Contexts.Cognitive science · 2026Article
- Human brain network for reading the mind from the eyes: beyond activated and deactivated regions.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) is widely used in clinical and non-clinical research. However, the structural properties of RMET scores have yet to be rigorously examined. We analyzed the structural properties of RMET scores in nine existing datasets comprising non-clinical samples ranging from 558 to 9,267 (median = 1,112) participants each. We used confirmatory factor analysis to assess two theoretically derived factor models, exploratory factor analysis to identify possible alternative factor models, and reliability estimates to assess internal consistency. Neither of the theoretically derived models was a good fit for any of the nine datasets, and we were unable to identify any better fitting multidimensional models. Internal consistency metrics were acceptable in six of the nine datasets, but these metrics are difficult to interpret given the uncertain factor structures. Our findings contribute to a growing body of evidence questioning the reliability and validity of RMET scores.
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.