MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Emotional Awareness Deficits in Inpatients of a Psychosomatic Ward: A Comparison of Two Different Measures of Alexithymia

2005· article· en· W1987507717 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychosomatic Medicine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaPsychologyToronto Alexithymia ScaleAffect (linguistics)Context (archaeology)Clinical psychologyAnxietyDepression (economics)CognitionEating disordersPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The TAS 20 has demonstrated strong psychometric properties in a broad variety of studies in healthy populations. Much less work has been done in clinical contexts exploring the validity of the TAS 20 as a measure of the cognitive processing of emotions. The TAS 20, a self-report scale, tends to correlate with self-reported negative affect, but in a clinical context it is important to be able to differentiate between negative affect and the cognitive processing of emotion. We therefore used the TAS 20 and a performance measure, the Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale (LEAS), which in previous studies demonstrated no overlap with measures of negative affect, to explore the ability of the two measures to detect deficits in emotional awareness in a clinical sample. METHODS: Data from inpatients of a psychosomatic ward were collected at onset (N = 394) and at the end of multimodal psychodynamic treatment (N = 249). The sample consisted of six diagnostic groups (depression; anxiety and compulsive-obsessive disorders, adjustment disorders, somatoform disorders, psychological factors related to somatic disorders, eating disorders). Changes in the TAS 20 and LEAS were compared at the two time points controlling for the effects of gender, age, educational level, and associations with self-reported negative affect. RESULTS: In contrast to the LEAS, the TAS 20 correlated with negative affect at the onset and the end of treatment. The scores of the TAS 20 decreased with treatment in all diagnostic groups but the change in the TAS 20 was not statistically significant when negative affect was controlled. In contrast, LEAS scores increased with treatment in the groups with somatoform disorders and psychological factors related to somatic disorders, and this change was independent of negative affect. CONCLUSION: The LEAS captured a change in emotional awareness due to treatment, whereas the TAS 20 captured a change in negative affect. The LEAS appears to be a more specific measure of change in emotional awareness in clinical contexts than the TAS 20.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it