MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042764349 · doi:10.1159/000328576

Kellner’s Emotional Inhibition Scale: A Clinimetric Approach to Alexithymia Research

2011· article· en· W2042764349 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Silvana Grandi, Laura Sirri, Thomas N. Wise, Eliana Tossani, Giovanni A. Fava

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychotherapy and Psychosomatics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaToronto Alexithymia ScalePsychologyFeelingClinical psychologyPersonalityPsychosomaticsDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychotherapy and PsychosomaticsSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207