Qualitative Markers of Reflective Functioning: Exploratory Psychometric Examination in Community Participants Meeting or Not Meeting Borderline Personality Disorder Criteria.

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Dror Daube, Shir Ada Basson, Leeav Sheena-Peer, Tom Livni, Noa Steinberg, Rotem Moshe-Cohen, Yogev Kivity
{"title":"Qualitative Markers of Reflective Functioning: Exploratory Psychometric Examination in Community Participants Meeting or Not Meeting Borderline Personality Disorder Criteria.","authors":"Dror Daube, Shir Ada Basson, Leeav Sheena-Peer, Tom Livni, Noa Steinberg, Rotem Moshe-Cohen, Yogev Kivity","doi":"10.1080/00223891.2026.2739318","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Reflective Functioning (RF) is the capacity to understand oneself and others in terms of mental states. It is central to intra- and interpersonal functioning, as impairments in RF are associated with psychopathology, and especially borderline personality disorder (BPD). The Reflective Functioning Scale (RFS), the gold-standard measure of RF, requires the identification of qualitative markers, but their specific contribution to the global score and whether the prevalence of these markers differs among proxies of clinical samples has rarely been examined. Participants who met the criteria for BPD (<i>n</i> = 51), other psychiatric disorders (<i>n</i> = 49), or healthy controls (<i>n</i> = 51) were interviewed for RF using the Brief Reflective Functioning Interview, which was coded with the RFS. Positive markers were stronger predictors of RF scores than negative ones, though both uniquely contributed to the prediction of RF. Qualitative categories did not predict the global RF scores beyond the prediction by marker valence. Groups differed in marker prevalence, with BPD displaying higher rates of distorted, self-serving markers of RF. Findings suggest that qualitative markers of RF add unique insight into mentalizing, informing theoretical and clinical endeavors, but that the current set of markers may be redundant and requires reconsideration.</p>","PeriodicalId":16707,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality assessment","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of personality assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2026.2739318","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Reflective Functioning (RF) is the capacity to understand oneself and others in terms of mental states. It is central to intra- and interpersonal functioning, as impairments in RF are associated with psychopathology, and especially borderline personality disorder (BPD). The Reflective Functioning Scale (RFS), the gold-standard measure of RF, requires the identification of qualitative markers, but their specific contribution to the global score and whether the prevalence of these markers differs among proxies of clinical samples has rarely been examined. Participants who met the criteria for BPD (n = 51), other psychiatric disorders (n = 49), or healthy controls (n = 51) were interviewed for RF using the Brief Reflective Functioning Interview, which was coded with the RFS. Positive markers were stronger predictors of RF scores than negative ones, though both uniquely contributed to the prediction of RF. Qualitative categories did not predict the global RF scores beyond the prediction by marker valence. Groups differed in marker prevalence, with BPD displaying higher rates of distorted, self-serving markers of RF. Findings suggest that qualitative markers of RF add unique insight into mentalizing, informing theoretical and clinical endeavors, but that the current set of markers may be redundant and requires reconsideration.

反思功能的定性标记:符合或不符合边缘型人格障碍标准的社区参与者的探索性心理测量检查。
反思功能(RF)是一种从心理状态来理解自己和他人的能力。它是内部和人际功能的核心,因为RF的损伤与精神病理,特别是边缘型人格障碍(BPD)有关。反射功能量表(RFS)是衡量反射功能的金标准,要求确定定性标记物,但它们对整体评分的具体贡献以及这些标记物的流行率在临床样本的代理中是否不同,很少被研究。符合BPD (n = 51)、其他精神疾病(n = 49)或健康对照(n = 51)标准的参与者使用简短反射功能访谈(RFS编码)进行射频访谈。阳性标记比阴性标记更能预测RF得分,尽管两者都对RF的预测有独特的贡献。定性分类不能预测总体RF分数,超出了标记价的预测。各组在标记流行率上存在差异,BPD显示出更高的扭曲的、自私自利的RF标记率。研究结果表明,RF的定性标记物为心理化提供了独特的见解,为理论和临床工作提供了信息,但目前的标记物可能是多余的,需要重新考虑。
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
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
8.80%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: The Journal of Personality Assessment (JPA) primarily publishes articles dealing with the development, evaluation, refinement, and application of personality assessment methods. Desirable articles address empirical, theoretical, instructional, or professional aspects of using psychological tests, interview data, or the applied clinical assessment process. They also advance the measurement, description, or understanding of personality, psychopathology, and human behavior. JPA is broadly concerned with developing and using personality assessment methods in clinical, counseling, forensic, and health psychology settings; with the assessment process in applied clinical practice; with the assessment of people of all ages and cultures; and with both normal and abnormal personality functioning.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书