Assessment of Alexithymia With the Rorschach Comprehensive System: The Rorschach Alexithymia Scale (RAS)
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
In this study, we developed the Rorschach Alexithymia Scale (RAS) to be used with protocols scored with the Comprehensive System (CS; Exner, 1993). A total of 92 patients with medical disease and 127 psychiatric outpatients were administered the Rorschach and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 1994a Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D. A. and Taylor, G. J. 1994a. The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale: I. Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38: 23–32. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], 1994b Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D. A. and Taylor, G. J. 1994b. The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale: II. Convergent, discriminant, and concurrent validity. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38: 33–40. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). We used a systematic approach, including cross-validation, to reduce a pool of 27 CS codes issued from an earlier investigation (Porcelli & Meyer, 2002 Porcelli, P. and Meyer, G. J. 2002. Construct validity of Rorschach variables of alexithymia. Psychosomatics, 43: 360–369. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) to 3 variables: Form%, CDI, and Pop. The RAS showed excellent diagnostic accuracy (hit rate of 92%, sensitivity of 88%, specificity of 94%, and area under the curve of .96). We suggest that the RAS can be used as a reliable integrative tool in a multimethod assessment approach to measuring alexithymia.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 it