Factorial validity of the Theory of Mind Inventory-2 in children with autism spectrum disorder.
ToMI-2 developmental scores are safer than social-function scores for autistic kids, yet none of its factors meet full psychometric standards.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team checked if the Theory of Mind Inventory-2 (ToMI-2) measures what it claims in autistic kids.
They gave the parent form to the caregivers of 3- to young learners with ASD.
Two factor models were tested: one based on developmental stages, one based on social content areas.
What they found
The developmental-stage model fit better, but still missed the mark for full psychometric rules.
The content-based model fit poorly.
Bottom line: treat ToMI-2 scores as rough guides, not hard numbers.
How this fits with other research
He et al. (2019) also used factor analysis on the RBS-R and found a clean 5-factor fit for Chinese preschoolers.
Their success shows good CFA results are possible; the ToMI-2’s weaker fit may lie in its item wording or age span.
Matson et al. (1994) found three solid CARS factors that track treatment change, proving autism scales can reach psychometric standards when items cluster tightly.
Boudreau et al. (2015) saw mixed validity for the PDDBI, echoing the ToMI-2 warning: some scores align with other tools, others don’t—so always cross-check.
Why it matters
You can keep using the ToMI-2 to flag theory-of-mind gaps, but report only the developmental-stage scores and add a qualifier about limited validity. Pair results with direct tasks or caregiver interview to avoid over-interpreting numbers.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Try the ToMI-2 developmental-stage score as a loose baseline, then probe the flagged skills with a live perspective-taking task to double-check.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The Theory of Mind Inventory-2 appears to be a promising measure assessing children's theory of mind. However, a lack of evidence on its factorial structure interferes with score interpretation. To examine whether the currently-available structures of the Theory of Mind Inventory-2 are robust and replicable, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted in 242 children with autism spectrum disorder aged 3-12 years. Two possible structures were examined: the development-based structure, which reflects children's developmental stages of theory of mind (early, basic, and advanced), and the content-based structure, which represents children's social-related functions (emotion recognition, mental state term comprehension, and pragmatics). Four fit indices were adopted simultaneously to examine the model fit of both structures. We found that the development-based structure had a better model fit and was further modified. After modification, the development-based structure showed an improved model fit, but it was not completely acceptable in all fit indices. These findings suggest that the scores of the Theory of Mind Inventory-2 are more appropriate for reflecting children's developmental stages of theory of mind than the social-related functions in children with autism spectrum disorder. However, the domain scores should be cautiously interpreted because the model fits were not completely acceptable. For further revisions, ambiguous terms (e.g., "want" and "need") and confusing concepts assessed by the items (e.g., "recognize" and "understand") could be specified for a better representation of children's developmental stages of theory of mind. Moreover, further validations are needed. LAY SUMMARY: In children with autism spectrum disorder, the scores of the Theory of Mind Inventory-2 are more appropriate for indicating the developmental stages of theory of mind (early, basic, and advanced) than for indicating the social-related functions (emotion recognition, mental state term comprehension, and pragmatics). However, since the factorial validity was not completely acceptable, the domain scores should be interpreted cautiously. Moreover, further revisions and validations are warranted.
Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research, 2021 · doi:10.1002/aur.2581