Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Metacognition has been conceptualized as the ability to reflect on self and others' mental states and representations, including affects, beliefs, and intentions. The Metacognition Self-Assessment Scale (MSAS) was developed to assess various aspects of metacognition, aiming to leverage its potential applications in fields like clinical psychology and psychotherapy. However, a concern associated with MSAS is whether individuals can accurately self-report difficulties in identifying and describing mental states, both their own and others', when they lack these abilities. In response to this challenge, we aimed to develop and validate an alternative reporting tool, the Metacognition Brief Rating Scale (MBRS), which serves as an informant form of MSAS. METHOD: The MBRS was administered to 384 individuals randomly recruited from the general population. We employed a methodological strategy based on three successive steps. In the preliminary step, items from the MSAS were rewritten into a third-person version by the authors. In the second step, we examined whether the four-factor structure was congruent between the informant-report (MBRS) and the self-report (MSAS) using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In the last step, we examined and compared the psychometric properties of the MBRS and MSAS items, including item characteristics and internal reliability analyses. RESULTS: The psychometric properties (items and scales) of both versions were found to be adequate, and the four-factor structure of the MBRS was supported. The correlation between the two versions was statistically significant, and the factor structures were similar. CONCLUSIONS: The results support the psychometric properties of the MBRS. However, further research is needed, especially in larger non-clinical and clinical samples, to replicate and extend these findings.