ArticleBrain and behavior2025
Persian Mentalized Affectivity Scale (MAS): Reliability, Validity, and Cultural Considerations.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2025. 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.
- Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of the Mentalizing Emotions Questionnaire.Iranian journal of psychiatry · 2026Article
- Persian Mentalized Affectivity Scale (MAS): Reliability, Validity, and Cultural Considerations.Brain and behavior · 2025Article
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
introductionMentalization and emotion regulation are increasingly recognized as key factors in the development and persistence of psychological disorders. Mentalized affectivity, an integrative construct encompassing both, reflects an individual's capacity to reflect upon and regulate emotions. Despite the growing interest in this construct, cross-cultural validation of its measurement remains limited. This study aimed to examine the psychometric properties of the Persian version of the Mentalized Affectivity Scale (MAS) in an Iranian adult sample.
methodsA total of 923 participants were recruited through convenience sampling and divided into two independent samples (N
resultsEFA yielded a four-factor model, encompassing Identifying Emotions, Processing Emotions, Expressing Emotions, and Recognizing Emotions. This structure diverges from the original three-factor model, potentially reflecting cultural distinctions in emotional processing. The strongest correlation coefficients were observed between Processing and Recognizing Emotions, which were previously merged as a single factor in the original scale. Internal consistency was excellent, with Cronbach's alpha values ranging from 0.847 to 0.895 and McDonald's omega ranging from 0.831 to 0.904, confirming the reliability of the Persian MAS.
conclusionThe findings provide preliminary validation for the Persian version of the MAS, supporting its factorial validity, reliability, and applicability for assessing mentalized affectivity in nonclinical populations. Given the scarcity of culturally adapted measures of mentalization in Iran, the MAS represents a valuable tool for both research and clinical settings.
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.