The Observer Alexithymia Scale: A Reliable and Valid Alternative for Alexithymia Measurement?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we evaluated the reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the Observer Alexithymia Scale (OAS; Haviland, Warren, & Riggs, 2000) while addressing shortcomings of earlier research. Internal consistency and test–retest reliability were found to be adequate, whereas interrater reliability was insufficient. The original five-factor model (Distant, Uninsightful, Somatizing, Humorless, Rigid) with item parcels showed excellent fit, indicating adequate translation. Alternative models were tested to overcome problems with the parcel method, and all showed poor fit. OAS total scores correlated .23 with the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 1994 Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D. A. and Taylor, G. J. 1994. 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]; Bagby, Taylor, & Parker, 1994 Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D. A. and Taylor, G. J. 1994. 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]) and .50 with the Toronto Structured Interview for Alexithymia (Bagby, Taylor, Parker, & Dickens, 2006 Bagby, R. M., Taylor, G. J., Parker, J. D. A. and Dickens, S. E. 2006. The development of the Toronto Structured Interview for Alexithymia: Item selection, factor structure, reliability and concurrent validity. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 75: 25–39. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). These problematic results on validity compromise the use of the OAS as an alexithymia measure.
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 | 0.012 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".