A study examining the relationship between alexithymia and challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research suggesting that people with intellectual disabilities (ID) have difficulties in recognising emotions provides a rationale for studying alexithymia in this population. A number of studies have found a relationship between alexithymia and challenging behaviours in various populations and this study aims to discover if this is the case for people with ID. METHOD: Cross-sectional data were collected from 96 participants with ID and 95 of their carers. The service user participants completed an alexithymia questionnaire for children while carers completed the checklist for challenging behaviour and the observer alexithymia scale. Correlational analyses were employed to explore relationships between the variables. RESULTS: The relationship between service user and carer-rated alexithymia was very weak. The analysis did show significant associations between observer-rated alexithymia and challenging behaviour frequency, management difficulty and severity, but there was no significant relationship between challenging behaviour and alexithymia as rated by service users themselves. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that observer-rated alexithymia is important in understanding challenging behaviour presented by people with ID. Service user-rated alexithymia had no association with challenging behaviour, in contrast to the results from similar research with other challenging populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".