Criterion-Related Validity of Diagnostic Criteria for Alexithymia in a General Hospital Psychiatric Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The diagnostic criteria for alexithymia (DCA) was proposed by Fava et al. in 1995. The purpose of this study was to examine the criterion-related validity of the DCA in a general hospital psychiatric setting. METHODS: The subjects included 126 outpatients with psychiatric disturbance. The severity of alexithymic characteristics was assessed using the DCA and Beth Israel Hospital Psychosomatic Questionnaire (BIQ). Two Japanese versions of the 26-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-26) and Minnesota Multiphasic. Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) were administered. RESULTS: The DCA had relatively high sensitivity and specificity, indicating adequate discriminant validity. The discriminant validity of the DCA was also supported by significant associations of the DCA with the TAS-26 and MMPI-2. These results indicate that when used for screening, the DCA has adequate criterion-related validity. CONCLUSIONS: The DCA may be clinically useful in a general hospital psychiatric setting.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".