Emotional Awareness Deficits in Inpatients of a Psychosomatic Ward: A Comparison of Two Different Measures of Alexithymia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".