The Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test: A Portuguese version of the adults test
The Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) is a Theory of Mind task that assesses the ability to understand others mental states in both healthy and clinical populations. The goal of the present study was to translate the revised version of the adults RMET to the Portuguese (European) language, investigate item validity for this version and differences related to gender. The English revised version was translated into Portuguese and 5 pilot studies were run to reach a final Portuguese version of the test. After these procedures, 130 adult participants (71 females) answered a computer version of the RMET. Thirty items showed appropriate answer distribution, while the remaining six did not meet the initially stipulated criteria for item validity. Mean scores for this adaptation were similar to those found in the original revised version and other translations. We found no differences related to gender in our sample. Future investigations should explore additional validity and reliability measures of this instrument.
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Digital revista |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
ISPA-Instituto Universitário
2018
|
| Online Access: | http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0870-82312018000300008 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | The Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) is a Theory of Mind task that assesses the ability to understand others mental states in both healthy and clinical populations. The goal of the present study was to translate the revised version of the adults RMET to the Portuguese (European) language, investigate item validity for this version and differences related to gender. The English revised version was translated into Portuguese and 5 pilot studies were run to reach a final Portuguese version of the test. After these procedures, 130 adult participants (71 females) answered a computer version of the RMET. Thirty items showed appropriate answer distribution, while the remaining six did not meet the initially stipulated criteria for item validity. Mean scores for this adaptation were similar to those found in the original revised version and other translations. We found no differences related to gender in our sample. Future investigations should explore additional validity and reliability measures of this instrument. |
|---|