The Development of the Toronto Structured Interview for Alexithymia: Item Selection, Factor Structure, Reliability and Concurrent Validity
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
BACKGROUND: Assessments of personality constructs increasingly use self-report and structured interview instruments, which allow for a multimethod measurement approach and decrease specific measurement method bias. The aim of this study was to develop a valid and reliable structured interview for assessing the alexithymia construct. METHODS: Sixty interview questions were written initially, each with a set of scoring criteria and prompts and probes to elicit information assisting in the scoring of the respondents' answers. RESULTS: After pilot testing, the number of questions was reduced to 43, which were administered to 136 community participants and 97 psychiatric outpatients. A series of item and scale analyses further reduced the item pool to 24 items. Principal component analysis and confirmatory factor analysis of these 24 items revealed preliminary evidence of a hierarchical, four-factor structure, with four lower factors nested within two higher-order latent factors. This structural configuration resulted in the Toronto Structured Interview for Alexithymia (TSIA) with two domain scales and four facet scales. The TSIA and its six scales demonstrated acceptable levels of interrater, internal, and retest reliability. The TSIA and its scales correlated modestly but significantly with the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale and its three factor scales, providing some support for the concurrent validity of this interview. CONCLUSION: The TSIA appears to be a promising structured interview for assessing 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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