Introduction
Emotion regulation can be considered as the intersection between emotion and cognition [1]. It has recently attracted great attention [2], and several theories have been proposed to explain it [3, 4], including the mentalized affectivity theory [1]. This theory proposes three components as a part of the emotion regulation process, including identifying, processing, or expressing an emotion [1, 2]. Mentalization, as a developmental achievement, is the ability to understand thoughts, feelings, wishes, and desires of oneself and others [6]. Despite the increasing importance of emotion regulation, there are currently a limited number of emotion regulation assessment tools; the existing tools mostly target specific aspects of emotion regulation [5]. Mentalized affectivity is an advanced form of emotion regulation that requires evaluating and discovering a new meaning in emotions, not just adjusting them [5, 10]. It integrates cognition and emotion [2]. The mentalized affectivity scale is a 60-item self-report tool developed by Greenberg et al. [5]. The brief-mentalized affectivity scale (B-MAS) [2] is a short version of this scale with 12 items. This study aims to examine the psychometric properties of the Persian version of B-MAS.

Methods
After translation and back-translation of the B-MAS, 414 students from three universities in Tehran, Iran completed the Persian versions of B-MAS, ten-item personality inventory (TIPI), satisfaction with life scale (SWLS), Beck anxiety inventory (BAI), and difficulties in emotion regulation scale (DERS) online. The construct validity was assessed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Convergent validity was examined by average variance extracted (AVE). Cronbach’s α was used to measure internal consistency. Test re-test method was used to evaluate reliability.

Results
Of 414 students, 295 (71.3%) were female and 119 (28.7%) were male. The results of CFA showed that the three-factor model of the Persian B-MAS including identifying, processing and expressing factors, had a good fit (Figure 1). Table 1 presents the results of model fit indices. However, item 4 was deleted.


The X2/df value was 2.96 which is acceptable based on literature [10]. A RMSEA greater than 0.10 indicates poor fit [11]. The RMSEA value in our study was 0.06, indicating the model’s good fitness. The values of other fit indexes including the goodness of fit index (GFI), comparative fit index (CFI), normed fit index (NFI), non-normed fit index (NNFI), incremental fit index (IFI) and adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) were 0.97, 0.92, 0.89, 0.90 and 0.96, respectively. These indices indicate a very good fit, if greater than 0.9, and a good fit, if >0.8 [12]. As can be seen, they were greater than 0.89, indicating a good fit of the model.
An AVE index should be greater than 0.5 [10]. In our study, it was 0.52 for the domain of identifying, 0.50 for the domain of processing, and 0.53 for the domain of expressing , confirming the convergent validity of the Persian B-MAS subs cales. Furthermore, the convergent and divergent validity were confirmed in relation to the BAI, TIPI, SWLS, and DER scores. Based on the results, there was a negative correlation between B-MAS and BAI and between B-MAS and DER scores (P<0.05), but there was a positive correlation between B-MAS and TIPI  and between B-MAS and SWLS scores (P<0.05).
A Cronbach’s  α should be more than 0.75 for good internal consistency [13]. In our study, it was from 0.86 to 0.88 for three sub scales. Test re-test reliability was from 0.75 to 0.80 for three sub scales. Composite reliability ranged from 0.79 to 0.82 for the sub scales. Composite reliability should be greater than 0.70 to be acceptable [10]. Overall, it can be said that the B-MAS is a reliable scale.

Conclusion
In this study, the CFA results confirmed the three-factor solution of the Persian B-MAS and showed its good structure. The “identifying” factor comprised of items 1,7,10; the “processing” factor comprised of items 2, 5, 8, 11, and the “expressing” factor comprised of items 3, 6, 9, 12. Item 4 was deleted because its factor loading was not significant. A higher score in these factors indicated better ability to mentalize and regulate emotions. Significant positive correlations of the score of Persian B-MAS with the scores of TIPI and SWLS confirmed its convergent validity. The negative correlation of the score of Persian B-MAS with the scores of BAI and DERS confirmed its divergent validity. These results are consistent with the findings of previous studies [6, 2, 14]. The AVE value for three factors also confirmed the convergent validity of the Persian B-MAS. The results also showed good internal consistency, test re-test reliability, and composite reliability. Overall, it can be concluded that the Persian version of B-MAS is a psychometrically robust measure.

Ethical Considerations
Compliance with ethical guidelines
This study has ethical approval from Tarbiat Modares University (Code: IR.MODARES.REC.1401.021). All ethical principles were considered in this study. The participants were informed about the study objectives. They were also assured of the confidentiality of their information and were free to leave the study at any time.

Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-forprofit sectors.

Authors contributions
Research and review, data collection and writing the original draft: Seyedah Mansoure Hakak; Review and editing: Parviz Azadfalah; Statistical analysis and review: Hojatullah Farahani.

Conflicts of interest
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all the students participated in this study for their cooperation.

References

1. Jurist EL. Mentalized affectivity. Psychoanalytic Psychology. 2005; 22(3):426-44. [DOI:10.1037/0736-9735.22.3.426]
2. Greenberg DM, Rudenstine S, Alaluf R, Jurist EL. Development and validation of the Brief-Mentalized Affectivity Scale: Evidence from cross-sectional online data and an urban community-based mental health clinic. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2021; 77(11):2638-52. [DOI:10.1002/jclp.23203] [PMID]
3. Gross JJ,  Thompson RA. Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. In Gross JJ, editor. Handbook of emotion regulation. New York: Guilford Press; 2007. [Link[
4. Gratz KL, Roemer L. Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 2004; 26:41-54. [DOI:10.1023/B:JOBA.0000007455.08539.94]
5. Greenberg DM, Kolasi J, Hegsted CP, Berkowitz Y, Jurist EL. Mentalized affectivity: A new model and assessment of emotion regulation. PloS One. 2017; 12(10):e0185264. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0185264] [PMID] [PMCID]
6. Allen JG, Fonagy P, Bateman AW. Mentalizing in clinical practice. Washington: American Psychiatric Pub; 2008. [Link]
7. Fonagy P. Thinking about thinking: Some clinical and theoretical considerations in the treatment of a borderline patient. The International Journal of  Psychoanalysis. 1991; 72(4):639-56. [Link]
8. Aldao A, Gee DG, De Los Reyes A, Seager I. Emotion regulation as a transdiagnostic factor in the development of internalizing and externalizing psychopathology: Current and future directions. Development and Psychopatholog. 2016; 28(4pt1), 927-46. [DOI:10.1017/S0954579416000638] [PMID]
9. Jurist EL. Minding emotions: Cultivating mentalization in psychotherapy. New York: Guilford Publications; 2018. [Link]
10. Fonagy P. Affect regulation, mentalization, and the development of the self. New York: Other Press; 2002. [Link]
11. Gross JJ, John OP. Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003; 85(2):348-62. [DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348] [PMID]
12. Bagby RM, Parker JD, Taylor GJ. The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale-I. Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 1994; 38(1):23-32. [DOI:10.1016/0022-3999(94)90005-1] [PMID]
13. Hofmann SG, Kashdan TB. The affective style questionnaire: Development and psychometric properties. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 2010; 32(2):255-63.[DOI:10.1007/s10862-009-9142-4] [PMID] [PMCID]
14. Liotti M, Spitoni GF, Lingiardi V, Marchetti A, Speranza AM, Valle A, et al. Mentalized affectivity in a nutshell: Validation of the Italian version of the Brief-Mentalized Affectivity Scale (B-MAS). Plos One. 2021; 16(12):e0260678. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0260678] [PMID] [PMCID]
15. MacCallum RC, Widaman KF, Zhang S, Hong S. Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods. 1999; 4(1):84-99. [DOI:10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84]
16. Comrey AL, Lee HB. A first course in factor analysis. Oxfordshire: Taylor & Francis; 2013. [Link]
17. Farahani, H., Roshan Chesli, R. Essentials for developing and validating psychological scales: Guide to best practices. Clinical Psychology and Personality. 2020; 17(2):197-212. [Link]
18. Gosling SD, Rentfrow PJ, Swann Jr WB. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality. 2003; 37(6):504-28. [DOI:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1]
19. Khodaparast A. [Examining the ability of TIPI in determining and distinguishing characteristics and factors of personality in non-clinical samples (Persian)] [MA Thesis]. Tehran: Shahed University; 2014.
20. Gratz KL, Rosenthal MZ, Tull MT, Lejuez CW, Gunderson JG. An experimental investigation of emotion dysregulation in borderline personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2006; 115(4):850-5. [DOI:10.1037/0021-843X.115.4.850] [PMID]
21. Besharat MA, Bazzazian S. Psychometri properties of the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire in a sample of Iranian population. Advances in Nursing & Midwifery. 2015; 24(84):61-70. [Link]
22. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment. 1985; 49(1):71-5. [DOI:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13] [PMID]
23. Sheikhi M, Hooman H, Ahadi H, Sepahmansur M. [Psychometric properties of satisfaction with Life Scale (Persian)]. Journal of Thought & Behavior in Clinical Psychology. 2010; 5(19):15-26. [Link]
24. Beck AT, Steer RA. Manual for the beck anxiety inventory. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. 1990.
25. Rafie M, Seifi A. [An investigation into the reliability and validity of beck anxiety inventory among the university students (Persian)]. Thoughts and Behavior in Clinical Psychology. 2013; 8(27):37-46. [Link]
26. Chiniforoushan F, Azadfallah, P, Farahani H. [Psychometric properties of the Persian Version of the Psychological Adaptation Scale (Persian)]. Clinical Psychology and Personality. 2020; 17(2):125-38. [Link]
27. Flora DB, Labrish C, Chalmers RP. Old and new ideas for data screening and assumption testing for exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Frontiers in Psychology. 2012; 3:55. [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00055] [PMID] [PMCID]
28. Mindrila D. Maximum likelihood (ML) and diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) estimation procedures: A comparison of estimation bias with ordinal and multivariate non-normal data. International Journal of Digital Society. 2010; 1(1):60-6. [DOI:10.20533/ijds.2040.2570.2010.0010]
29. Jackson DL, Gillaspy JA, Purc-Stephenson R. Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods. 2009; 14(1):6-23. [DOI:10.1037/a0014694] [PMID]
30. Barrett P. Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences. 2007; 42(5):815-24. [DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018]
31. Alexopoulos DS, Kalaitzidis I. Psychometric properties of Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, short scale in Greece. Personality and Individual Differences. 2004; 37(6):1205-20. [DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2003.12.005]
32. Meyers LS, Gamst G, Guarino AJ. Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Thousand Oak: Sage publication; 2016. [Link]
33. Tsai HW, Cebula K, Fletcher-Watson S. Influences on the psychosocial adjustment of siblings of children with autism spectrum disorder in Taiwan and the United Kingdom. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2016; 32:115-29. [DOI:10.1016/j.rasd.2016.09.007]
34. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective.  Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2010.
35. Chaplin TM. Gender and emotion expression: A developmental contextual perspective. Emotion Review. 2015; 7(1):14-21. [DOI:10.1177/1754073914544408] [PMID] [PMCID]
36. Addis M. Invisible men: Men’s inner lives and the consequences of silence. New York: Henry Holt and Company; 2011. [Link]
37. Helms JE, Henze KT, Sass TL, Mifsud VA. Treating Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficients as data in counseling research. The Counseling Psychologist. 2006; 34(5):630-60. [DOI:10.1177/0011000006288308]
38. Jurist E. Minding emotions: Cultivating mentalization in psychotherapy. New York: Guilford Publications; 2019. [Link]
39. Kadivar P, Farzad VA, Kavousian J, Nikdel F. جValiditing the Pekruns achievement emotion questionnaire (Persian)] . Journal of Educational Innovation. 2010; 8(4):7-38. [Link]
40. Sayarfard Z, Azadfallah P, Farahani H. [Psychometric properties and factor structure of the Persian version of Mentalized Affectivity Scale (Persian)]. Journal of Birjand University of Medical Sciences. 2021; 28(4):385-401. [DOI:10.32592/JBirjandUnivMedSci.2021.28.4.107]
41. Rinaldi T, Castelli I, Greco A, Greenberg DM, Jurist E, Valle A, et al. The Mentalized Affectivity Scale (MAS): Development and validation of the Italian version. Plos One. 2021; 16(4):e0249272. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0249272] [PMID] [PMCID]
42. Aival-Naveh E, Rothschild-Yakar L, Kurman J. Keeping culture in mind: A systematic review and initial conceptualization of mentalizing from a cross-cultural perspective. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 2019; 26(4):e12300. [DOI:10.1111/cpsp.12300]
43. Rostami H, Behrouzian F, Mousavi Asl E. [Psychometric properties of the Persian Version of the COVID-19 Anxiety Syndrome Scale in Iranian college students (Persian)]. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology. 2022; 28(3):360-73 [DOI:10.32598/ijpcp.28.3.2146.2]