Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test Scores Demonstrate Poor Structural Properties in Nine Large Non-Clinical Samples.

IF 3.5 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Wendy C Higgins, Victoria Savalei, Vince Polito, Robert M Ross
{"title":"Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test Scores Demonstrate Poor Structural Properties in Nine Large Non-Clinical Samples.","authors":"Wendy C Higgins, Victoria Savalei, Vince Polito, Robert M Ross","doi":"10.1177/10731911251328604","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":8577,"journal":{"name":"Assessment","volume":" ","pages":"10731911251328604"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911251328604","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

在9个大型非临床样本中,眼睛读心术测试分数显示出较差的结构特性。
通过眼睛读心测试(RMET)广泛应用于临床和非临床研究。然而,RMET分数的结构特性尚未得到严格的检验。我们分析了9个现有数据集中RMET评分的结构特性,这些数据集包括558至9267名(中位数= 1112)参与者的非临床样本。我们使用验证性因子分析来评估两个理论推导的因子模型,探索性因子分析来确定可能的替代因子模型,并使用可靠性评估来评估内部一致性。这两种理论推导的模型都不能很好地拟合9个数据集中的任何一个,而且我们无法确定任何更好的拟合多维模型。内部一致性指标在9个数据集中的6个中是可接受的,但由于不确定的因素结构,这些指标很难解释。我们的发现为质疑RMET分数的可靠性和有效性提供了越来越多的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Assessment
Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
2.60%
发文量
86
期刊介绍: Assessment publishes articles in the domain of applied clinical assessment. The emphasis of this journal is on publication of information of relevance to the use of assessment measures, including test development, validation, and interpretation practices. The scope of the journal includes research that can inform assessment practices in mental health, forensic, medical, and other applied settings. Papers that focus on the assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological functioning, personality, and psychopathology are invited. Most papers published in Assessment report the results of original empirical research, however integrative review articles and scholarly case studies will also be considered.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信