[Cross-cultural psychometric assessment of the Bermond-Vorst alexithymia questionnaire].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The alexithymia construct was introduced by Nemiah and Sifneos in the early 70s. It is a multifaceted personality construct that has been recognized associated with various conditions of health disorders. Nonetheless, despite the abundant literature, due to methodological weaknesses, a great share of the studies has been proved of questionable validity and reliability. In recent years a new self-report instrument has been developed, the Bermond-Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire (BVAQ), meant to assess the alexithymia construct in a more comprehensive way than the more commonly used 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). The aim was to investigate the cross-cultural psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the BVAQ. In this study, carried out in a sample of university students (n = 369), we began testing the originally proposed 5-factor structure, by means of a factor analysis; just to proceed thereafter with the internal consistencies determination. Furthermore we investigated the stability, as well as its convergent validity with the Toronto Alexithymia Scale--20 items (TAS-20). Principal Components Analysis showed that internal structure of the 40 items acceptably fitted into the 5-factor solution. The mean total score differs about 0.6 SD from the original Dutch sample. Internal consistencies are also acceptably about the ones in the original sample: Cronbach's alpha = 0.82 for the global scale and a mean 0.77 for the subscales. Moreover the instrument is reliably stable; and the expected correlations between BVAQ and TAS-20 subscales support evidence of BVAQ's validity. The Portuguese version of the BVAQ is a highly promising new instrument to comprehensively assess alexithymia, and its use can therefore be recommended.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".