The assessment of mentalization (i.e. “the mental process by which an individual implicitly and explicitly interprets the actions of himself and others as meaningful on the basis of intentional mental states such as personal desires, needs, feelings, beliefs, and reasons” (Bateman & Fonagy, 2004, p. xxi) represents a compelling issue in relation to the construct (Luyten, Fonagy, Lowyck, & Vermote, 2012). Objective. The aim of this work was to provide data on the validation of two clinician-report multidimensional assessment measures of mentalization, the Mentalization Imbalances Scale (MIS; Colli & Gagliardini, 2015a; Gagliardini et al., 2018) and the Modes of Mentalization Scale (MMS; Colli & Gagliardini, 2015b; Gagliardini & Colli, in press). Study 1. Method. A random national sample of psychotherapists (N=190) completed the MIS and the MMS to identify mentalization problematics, the Adult Attachment Questionnaire (Westen & Nakash, 2006) and the Personality Disorder Checklist to assess the personality disorders (PDs) of randomly selected patients currently in their care. Confirmative and explorative factor analyses were carried out to investigate the internal structure of the scales and a multiple regression analysis was carried out to investigate the relationship between mentalization and attachment style and personality disorders. Results. Results showed the presence of six factors, related to imbalances in the dimensions of mentalization, for the MIS (i.e., imbalance towards self, imbalance towards others, automatic imbalance, external imbalance, cognitive imbalance, affective imbalance) and of five factors, related to the quality of mentalization, for the MMS (i.e., excessive certainty, concrete thought, good mentalization, teleological thought and intrusive pseudomentalization). These factors were related in a significant and clinically coherent way to attachment style and personality disorders. Study 2. Method. A random sample of 197 clinicians and therapists completed a series of self-report and clinician-report measures. Clinician report measures included the MIS, the MMS, the Adult Attachment Questionnaire and the Personality Disorders Checklist. Self-report measures included the Reflective Functioning Questionnaire (Fonagy et al., 2016), the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Strategies (Gratz & Roemer, 2004), the Basic Empathy Scale (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006) and the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980, 1983, 2006). Results. Results show that the correlations between the MIS and MMS scales and self-report measures are clinically and theoretically coherent. The two scales developed in this work seem to represent reliable and clinically useful measures of mentalizing imbalances and pre-mentalizing modalities of thought.

La valutazione della mentalizzazione: costruzione e validazione della Mentalization Imbalances Scale e della Modes of Mentalization Scale.

Gagliardini, Giulia
2019

Abstract

The assessment of mentalization (i.e. “the mental process by which an individual implicitly and explicitly interprets the actions of himself and others as meaningful on the basis of intentional mental states such as personal desires, needs, feelings, beliefs, and reasons” (Bateman & Fonagy, 2004, p. xxi) represents a compelling issue in relation to the construct (Luyten, Fonagy, Lowyck, & Vermote, 2012). Objective. The aim of this work was to provide data on the validation of two clinician-report multidimensional assessment measures of mentalization, the Mentalization Imbalances Scale (MIS; Colli & Gagliardini, 2015a; Gagliardini et al., 2018) and the Modes of Mentalization Scale (MMS; Colli & Gagliardini, 2015b; Gagliardini & Colli, in press). Study 1. Method. A random national sample of psychotherapists (N=190) completed the MIS and the MMS to identify mentalization problematics, the Adult Attachment Questionnaire (Westen & Nakash, 2006) and the Personality Disorder Checklist to assess the personality disorders (PDs) of randomly selected patients currently in their care. Confirmative and explorative factor analyses were carried out to investigate the internal structure of the scales and a multiple regression analysis was carried out to investigate the relationship between mentalization and attachment style and personality disorders. Results. Results showed the presence of six factors, related to imbalances in the dimensions of mentalization, for the MIS (i.e., imbalance towards self, imbalance towards others, automatic imbalance, external imbalance, cognitive imbalance, affective imbalance) and of five factors, related to the quality of mentalization, for the MMS (i.e., excessive certainty, concrete thought, good mentalization, teleological thought and intrusive pseudomentalization). These factors were related in a significant and clinically coherent way to attachment style and personality disorders. Study 2. Method. A random sample of 197 clinicians and therapists completed a series of self-report and clinician-report measures. Clinician report measures included the MIS, the MMS, the Adult Attachment Questionnaire and the Personality Disorders Checklist. Self-report measures included the Reflective Functioning Questionnaire (Fonagy et al., 2016), the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Strategies (Gratz & Roemer, 2004), the Basic Empathy Scale (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006) and the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980, 1983, 2006). Results. Results show that the correlations between the MIS and MMS scales and self-report measures are clinically and theoretically coherent. The two scales developed in this work seem to represent reliable and clinically useful measures of mentalizing imbalances and pre-mentalizing modalities of thought.
2019
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Phd_uniurb_274821.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: DT
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 1.31 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.31 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11576/2664510
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact