Construct validity evidence reporting practices for the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test: A systematic scoping review
Wendy C. Higgins, David M. Kaplan, Eliane Deschrijver, Robert M. Ross
Abstract
The Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) is one of the most influential measures of social cognitive ability, and it has been used extensively in clinical populations. However, questions have been raised about the validity of RMET scores. We conducted a systematic scoping review of the validity evidence reported in studies that administered the RMET (n = 1461; of which 804 included at least one clinical sample) with a focus on six key dimensions: internal consistency, test-retest reliability, factor structure, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and known group validity. Strikingly, 63% of these studies failed to provide validity evidence from any of these six categories. Moreover, when evidence was reported, it frequently failed to meet widely accepted validity standards. Overall, our results suggest a troubling conclusion: the validity of RMET scores (and the research findings based on them) are largely unsubstantiated and uninterpretable. More broadly, this project demonstrates how unaddressed measurement issues can undermine a voluminous psychological literature.