ArticleThe British journal of clinical psychology2026
Assessing mentalization in practice: Reliability of the mentalization-based treatment research adherence and competence scale.
Article in The British journal of clinical psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Feasibility and acceptability of the MentiParent AI chatbot for training parental reflective functioning.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Assessing mentalization in practice: Reliability of the mentalization-based treatment research adherence and competence scale.The British journal of clinical psychology · 2026Article
- Making visible the clinical practice of mentalization-based therapy as illustrated by the therapy session material.Discover mental health · 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
objectivesMentalization-Based Treatment (MBT) requires rigorous fidelity assessment to ensure accurate delivery and validate treatment efficacy. This study introduces the Mentalization-Based Treatment Research Adherence and Competence Scale (MBT-RACS), a new instrument developed initially for research purposes to align with contemporary MBT principles and address psychometric and conceptual limitations found in earlier adherence assessment approaches.
methodsInter-rater reliability of the MBT-RACS was evaluated using 126 recorded MBT sessions (104 group, 22 individual), rated by 17 trained coders.
resultsThe results indicated strong overall reliability, with most domains demonstrating good to excellent inter-rater agreement across both group and individual sessions, irrespective of ratings from two or three raters. Total adherence intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were notably high for both group (.84) and individual (.95) sessions rated by two coders, substantially exceeding the reliability typically reported for comparable adherence instruments.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that the MBT-RACS's format, which emphasizes broader, clinically meaningful domains, may contribute to improved consistency in ratings. The scale's robust reliability supports its applicability in research and clinical supervision, enhancing methodological rigour, quality assurance and targeted feedback for effective MBT training and implementation.
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.