INVESTIGACIÓN DE LA CONSISTENCIA DE RESULTADOS EVALUADOS POR LAS ESCALAS DE ALEXITIMIA TORONTO (T.A.S.) 26 Y 20.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumen: El concepto Alexitimia constituye un constructo hipotetico. El termino significa ausencia de verbalizacion de afectos y sentimientos (Sifneos 1972). Se ha probado la validez del constructo en los diagnosticos diferenciales de cuadros psicosomaticos y actuadores, asi como, reconocido numerosas variables que afectan sus resultados. Tambien se han construido varios instrumentos dedicados a su evaluacion. Objetivo: Considerando que la Escala de Alexitimia Toronto ha demostrado a traves de varios estudios su validez y confiabilidad para la medida del constructo, el objetivo del presente estudio es la comparacion de dos versiones existentes de la Escala de Alexitimia Toronto: la T.A.S. 26 y la T.A.S. 20. Procedimiento: Se utilizaron como instrumentos de evaluacion ambas versiones de la escala, que fueron aplicadas a una muestra compuesta por 107 casos. A todos los sujetos se les administraron ambas escalas, primero la T.A.S. 26 y luego de tres meses la T.A.S. 20. Se compararon los resultados obtenidos en las muestras. Luego se realizo un analisis cualitativo de 22 casos en los que las dos versiones de la escala arrojaban resultados contradictorios, en la medida en que en la TAS 26 los sujetos puntuaron con caracteristicas alexitimicas y en la TAS 20 como no alexitimicos. Resumen en Ingles Abstract The Alexithymia construct means inability to express emotions and feelings. The aim of this study was the comparation between two versions of the TAS (Toronto Alexithymia Scale): TAS 26 and TAS 20. Method: The total sample of 107 cases was composed by three groups of voluntary individuals: 40 normatives, 50 students of Journalysm and 17 students of Psychology. All individuals complete both versions of the TAS: 26 and 20. The results were considered by two kinds of analisys: the meaning of the score obtained by all the groups in the two scales and a qualitative point of view to evaluate the results of the scales. The paper discuss the reasons of the differences founded in our sample between TAS 26 and TAS 20. Palabras Clave Alexitimia, TAS26, TAS20
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".