Faktorenstruktur und Testgüte-kriterien der deutschen Version der Toronto-Alexithymie-Skala (TAS-20) bei psychosomatischen Patienten
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In der vorliegenden Arbeit wurde die von den Autoren des Instrumentes postulierte dreifaktorielle Struktur der deutschen Version der 20-Item-Toronto-Alexithymie-Skala an einer Stichprobe von 419 psychogen erkrankten Patienten mittels konfirmatorischer Faktorenanalyse überprüft. Es ergab sich jedoch weder eine befriedigende interne Konsistenz aller Subskalen, noch resultierte eine akzeptable Anpassung der erhobenen Daten an das dreifaktorielle Modell. Mittels explorativer Hauptkomponentenanalyse war daraufhin der Versuch unternommen worden, ein konsistenteres Alternativmodell zu ermitteln. Die resultierende vierfaktorielle Struktur ist inhaltlich gut interpretierbar und konsistent sowohl im Hinblick auf Theorie als auch auf empirische Befunde zum Alexithymiekonstrukt. Zur weiteren Absicherung der Stabilität der resultierenden Struktur ist noch eine Kreuzvalidierung an einer zweiten Stichprobe notwendig. Factorial Structure and Psychometric Properties of the German Version of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) of Psychosomatic Patients The present paper describes the attempt to cross-validate the three-factorial structure of the German Version of the 20-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale in a population of 419 patients, suffering of psychogenic disorders. However, results neither revealed good internal consistencies nor was it possible to obtain an acceptable adaptation of the empirical data on the postulated model. Therefore an explorative factor analysis was performed in order to get a more consistent factor model. The hereby resulting four-factorial structure was congruent with reference to theoretical and empirical data of alexithmyia. However, additional crossvalidation in other populations has to be investigated.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".