FAMILY‐OF‐ORIGIN EXPRESSIVENESS: MEASUREMENT, MEANING, AND RELATIONSHIP TO ALEXITHYMIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The need for research instruments to assess the impact of affective expressiveness within the family is evident, yet few appear to be adequately designed for this purpose. In this article, we present two studies addressing this need. In the first study, the original 40-item Family-of-Origin Scale was administered to 416 students to determine those items that constitute the factor structure. This instrument was designed to assess perceived levels of health in the family of origin but has unsubstantiated construct validity. Results from a confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the instrument has one major factor, and results from five other studies provide evidence supporting the construct validity. Face validity of this 22-item construct indicates that it assesses an individual's perceived level of global expressive atmosphere within his or her family of origin. In the second study, the new Family-of-Origin Expressive Atmosphere Scale and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale were administered to 295 students. Students' self-reported expressive atmospheres in their family-of-origin scores were significantly correlated with the total scores of alexithymia and each of the three factors: impaired ability to identify feelings, impaired ability to describe feelings, and externally oriented thinking processes. No significant gender differences were found.
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 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".