Kellner’s Emotional Inhibition Scale: A Clinimetric Approach to Alexithymia Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emotional inhibition has been an enduring concept in the psychosomatic literature explaining the onset and course of medical disorders. Currently the personality style of alexithymia is a focus of this dimension in psychosomatic theory, while actual conscious emotional inhibition, which may overlap with alexithymia, has received less attention. In the early 80s Robert Kellner developed the Emotional Inhibition Scale (EIS), a self-rating scale for emotional inhibition based on clinimetric principles. In this study we explored whether the EIS differentiated a sample of cardiac recipients from normal controls, as well as the associations between the EIS and 2 measures of alexithymia, i.e. the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 (TAS-20) and the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research (DCPR). We also examined whether the EIS and the TAS-20 were differently related to depressive symptoms measured by the Symptom Questionnaire (SQ). METHODS: Ninety-five heart-transplanted patients and a sample of normal controls, matched for sociodemographic variables, were administered the EIS (total score and 4 subscales concerning 'verbal inhibition', 'timidity', 'disguise of feelings', and 'self-control'), the TAS-20, the SQ, and the Structured Interview according to the DCPR for alexithymia. RESULTS: Cardiac recipients did not display significant differences compared to normal controls in observer (DCPR) and self-rated (TAS-20) measures of alexithymia. There were, however, significant differences in EIS with regard to 'disguise of feelings'. In both groups the EIS 'verbal inhibition' and 'timidity' subscales were positively associated with the TAS-20, while the EIS 'disguise of feelings' and 'self-control' subscales were independent of alexithymia. Depressive symptoms were more related to TAS-20 than EIS total scores. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that emotional inhibition and alexithymia are distinct phenomena even though they may share certain features. The EIS appears to be relatively independent of depressed mood and will be useful in assessing the individual's conscious management of affect in future psychosomatic research.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".