Construct Validity of the Mentalization Scale (MentS) Within a Mixed Psychiatric Sample

The Brief Version of the Mentalization Scale (MentS-12): Evidence-Based Assessment of Mentalizing Capacity

Recognizing the need for a concise self-report measure of mentalizing capacity, we developed a 12-item iteration of the well-established Mentalization Scale (MentS). Using college student and community samples of Serbian adults (N = 566), we performed a precise selection of items and then examined the psychometric attributes of the shortened scale (MentS-12). The new scale maintains the original three-dimensional structure: self-related mentalization, other-related mentalization, and motivation to mentalize. MentS-12 proves to be both reliable and structurally consistent. To improve its utility in therapeutic contexts, we determined clinical change thresholds for both the complete and abbreviated forms. We hope that its feasibility stimulates the integration of the MentS-12 in longitudinal research projects and real-world clinical settings.

Mentalization Scale (MentS): Validity and reliability of the Iranian version in a sample of nonclinical adults

INTRODUCTION

Mentalizing incapacity is increasingly identified as a common factor in psychopathology. The Mentalization Scale (MentS) is a cost-effective measure built upon the dimensional model of mentalizing. We aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Iranian version of MentS.

METHODS

Two samples of community-based adults (N1  = 450, N2  = 445) completed different batteries of self-report measures. In addition to MentS, participants completed measures of reflective functioning and attachment insecurities in the first sample and a measure of emotion dysregulation in the second sample.

RESULTS

Due to the conflicting results of confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses, an item-parceling approach was applied, which replicated the original three-factor structure of MentS, yielding Self-Related Mentalization, Other-Related Mentalization, and Motivation to Mentalize. The reliability and convergent validity of MentS were supported in both samples.

CONCLUSION

Our findings provided preliminary evidence for using the Iranian version of MentS in nonclinical populations as a reliable and valid measure.

Does clinical training improve mentalization skills in future therapists? A comparison of first and last year students of clinical psychology and of engineering

Objective

Mentalization has been suggested as a therapist skill that might be important for therapeutic success. The aim of this study was to explore whether the mentalization capacity of students of clinical psychology differs from other students, and whether last-year students differ from first-year students.

Method

A total of 297 students participated in this study, recruited from first and last years of psychology and engineering study programs. All participants filled out the MentS, a self-report measure of mentalization capacity.

Results

No significant differences were found in self-reported mentalization capacity between first and last year students of clinical psychology. The results did however show that first year students of psychology had significantly higher self-reported mentalization skills compared to students of engineering, and higher MentS-scores were associated with gender (female) and higher age.

Conclusion

The finding that students of clinical psychology rate themselves as having a higher capacity to mentalize compared to students of engineering might suggest that individuals with a higher capacity to mentalize are more likely to engage in clinical psychology and become therapists. However, the lack of significant difference in self-reported mentalization capacity in last year students of clinical psychology compared to first year students might indicate that the Norwegian education in clinical psychology does not succeed in enhancing mentalization in future therapists. Clinical psychology study programs might benefit from targeted mentalization training.

An apprenticeship model in the training of psychotherapy students. Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial and qualitative investigation

Background

One approach towards advancing the quality of mental health care is to improve psychotherapists’ skills through education and training. Recently, psychotherapy training has benefitted from adapting training methods from other professions (e.g., deliberate practice). The apprenticeship model has a long history in skill trades and medicine, but has yet to be adopted in training mental health professionals. This study aims to investigate the impact of apprenticeship training on clinical psychology students’ skills.

Methods

In a pragmatic mixed-methods trial, 120 first year students in a Master’s degree clinical psychology program will be randomized to either training-as-usual or training-as-usual plus psychotherapy apprenticeship. In the intervention group, students will participate, over a period of 10 weeks, in weekly treatment sessions together with licensed therapists at outpatient mental health and substance use treatment clinics. Outcomes are assessed post-intervention and at two-year follow-up. The main outcome measure is the Facilitative Interpersonal Skills (FIS) performance test. Additional self-report measures tap self-efficacy, self-compassion, worry, rumination, and stress. Weekly reflection log entries written by the students will be qualitatively analyzed in order to gain an in-depth understanding of the learning process. Students’ and therapists’ experiences with the intervention will be explored in focus group interviews.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first controlled study to investigate the impact of apprenticeship as an isolated training component in the education of clinical psychologists. The study is designed so as to yield a comprehensive understanding of an approach which could prove to be a valuable supplement to the existing educational methods in this field and ultimately, contribute to improve the quality of mental health care.

A Systematic Review of the Current Measures of Theory of Mind in Adults with Schizophrenia

Adults with schizophrenia usually have impairments in theory of mind (ToM), which subsequently cause them problems in social interaction. Therefore, it is important for healthcare providers to assess their ToM using adequate measures. This systematic review evaluated current ToM measures (or ToM tasks) for adults with schizophrenia and summarized their specific characteristics, including the concept and construct, administration, and psychometric properties. From a review of 117 articles, 13 types of ToM tasks were identified, and the findings from these articles were qualitatively synthesized. The results showed that ToM tasks are diverse in their presentation modalities, answer modes, strategies of controlling cognitive confounders, and scoring. Most tasks employ cognitive and affective dimensions and target a specific, single ToM concept. The present systematic review found that psychometric evidence supporting the ToM tasks, such as internal consistency, test–retest reliability, unidimensionality, and convergent, criterion, and ecological validities, is insufficient. Based on the results, we propose several principles for selecting appropriate ToM tasks in practice, e.g., selecting a task with multiple ToM concepts, or an exclusive ToM construct containing the cognitive and affective dimensions. Moreover, future studies are needed to provide more psychometric evidence on each type of ToM task applied in people with schizophrenia.