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 ( = 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.

中文翻译：

---

构建“眼中读心”测试的有效性证据报告实践：系统范围界定审查

“眼中读心”测试（RMET）是社会认知能力最具影响力的衡量标准之一，已广泛应用于临床人群。然而，人们对 RMET 分数的有效性提出了质疑。我们对实施 RMET 的研究中报告的有效性证据（= 1461；其中 804 项至少包括一个临床样本）进行了系统范围审查，重点关注六个关键维度：内部一致性、重测可靠性、因素结构、收敛效度、区分效度和已知群体效度。引人注目的是，其中 63% 的研究未能提供这六个类别中任何一个类别的有效性证据。此外，当证据被报告时，它经常无法满足广泛接受的有效性标准。总的来说，我们的结果得出了一个令人不安的结论：RMET 分数的有效性（以及基于它们的研究结果）在很大程度上未经证实且无法解释。更广泛地说，该项目展示了未解决的测量问题如何破坏大量的心理学文献。