The Revised Toronto Alexithymia Scale: Some Reliability, Validity, and Normative Data
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Addressing certain problems with the compositional structure of the self-report Toronto Alexithymia Scale, this paper reports the development of a revised version of the scale as well as results from a preliminary series of studies evaluating its reliability and validity. The Revised Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-R) demonstrated good internal consistency and a stable and replicable two-factor structure that is congruent with the two major dimensions of the alexithymia construct. Evidence of convergent and discriminant validity for the TAS-R was provided by correlations with measures of other constructs. Criterion validity was demonstrated by the ability of TAS-R scores to discriminate between behavioral medicine outpatients designated alexithymic and those designated non-alexithymic on the basis of clinical interview ratings. Normative data are provided for university student, normal adult, and psychiatric outpatient 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it