Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41150688›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Validation of the Mentalization Scale (MentS) in francophone control and clinical samples.

Flora Descartes, Vincent Besch, Margaux Bouteloup, Rosetta Nicastro, Eléonore Pham, Eva Rüfenacht, Nader Ali Perroud, Martin Debbané

Erratum issuedAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Flora DescartesDevelopmental Clinical Psychology Research Unit, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-6973-0655
Vincent BeschDevelopmental Clinical Psychology Research Unit, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Margaux BouteloupDevelopmental Clinical Psychology Research Unit, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Rosetta NicastroFaculty of Medicine,  University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Eléonore PhamFaculty of Medicine,  University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Eva RüfenachtFaculty of Medicine,  University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Nader Ali PerroudFaculty of Medicine,  University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Martin DebbanéDevelopmental Clinical Psychology Research Unit, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe Mentalization Scale (MentS) is a self-report measure for the assessment of mentalizing capacities, consisting of 28 items, yielding a three-factor structure: self-mentalizing, mentalizing others and motivation to mentalize. Its anglophone version has been validated for usage in both research and clinical contexts. The present study explores the psychometric properties of the francophone translation of the MentS, in both control and clinical samples.

methodA total of 711 participants were enrolled in this study. The MentS was administered to a community sample (N = 302, 161 females, Mage = 37.1, SDage = 12.3), and to a clinical sample composed of participants diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (BPD), attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) and co-occurring BPD and ADHD (N = 409, 266 females, Mage = 32.5, SDage = 11.9). Confirmatory factory analysis was used to analyze the fit of the model in our data, followed by reliability and validity analyses.

resultsResults from confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed a 27-item model to best fit the data for both control and clinical samples. In the control sample, good internal consistency was found for the total scale (α = 0.856, ω = 0.867) as well as for the three subscales MentS-Motivation (α = 0.789, ω = 0.801), MentS-Other (α = 0.792, ω = 0.798) and MentS-Self (α = 0.824, ω = 0.828). Similarly, good internal consistency was found in the clinical sample for the total scale (α = 0.871, ω = 0.879) and subscales (Motivation α = 0.770, ω = 0.783) (Others α = 0.842, ω = 0.847) (Self α = 0.808, ω = 0.815). The MentS demonstrated good temporal stability over a one-year interval, with excellent average-measures ICC for the total scale (ICC = .877, 95% CI [.843,.904], p < .001), and strong reliability for the Motivation (.837), Others (.806), and Self (.837) subscales (all ps < .001). The validity of the scale was confirmed using additional measures showing a coherent pattern of associations in relation to components underlying the construct of mentalization: reflective functioning, childhood trauma, cognitive emotion regulation, overall psychopathology distress and borderline symptomatology. CONCLUSION & CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The MentS can be used for research and clinical purposes in francophone samples. Our results suggest that amongst French speaking samples, a 27-item solution may be most optimal in both clinical and control populations. Evidence shows the scale could be employed across diagnostic entities, and that participants scoring low in self-mentalizing (MentS-Self subscale) may be more likely to report increased manifestations of psychopathology.

Indexed as

Attention Deficit Disorder with HyperactivityBorderline Personality DisorderMentalizationAdultFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSelf ReportYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41150688
PMCPMC12561985

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.