Can alexithymia be assessed in adolescents? Psychometric properties of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale in younger, middle, and older adolescents.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20; Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 1994; Bagby, Taylor, & Parker, 1994) is the most widely used self-report measure of the alexithymia construct. The TAS-20 comprises 3 factors that assess difficulty identifying feelings, difficulty describing feelings, and externally oriented thinking. Although the instrument is being increasingly used with adolescent respondents, the psychometric properties of the TAS-20 have not been systematically evaluated in preadult populations. In the present study, we examined measurement invariance of the factor structure, internal reliability, and mean levels of responses on the TAS-20 in groups of younger adolescents (aged 13-14 years), middle adolescents (aged 15-16 years), and older adolescents (aged 17-18 years), as well as in a comparison group of young adults (aged 19-21 years). Formal readability analysis of the TAS-20 assessment was also conducted. Results revealed systematic age differences in the factor structure and psychometric properties of the TAS-20, with the quality of measurement progressively deteriorating with younger age. Much of this effect could be attributed to the reading difficulty of the scale. The use of the TAS-20 with teenage respondents is not recommended without appropriate adaptation and further psychometric validation. Several adaptation strategies are discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".