Cross‐cultural validation of the 20‐item Toronto Alexithymia Scale in Chinese adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: The TAS-20 is the most widely used self-reported questionnaire to assess the level of alexithymia in students and community and clinical samples. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: The TAS-20-C exhibited high levels of reliability and validity, indicating that it is appropriate for the assessment of alexithymia in Chinese adolescents. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Screening adolescents who are at risk of alexithymia through the TAS-20 could help to perform necessary and effective precautions to decrease the adverse effects of alexithymia, such as the risks of developing depressive mood and behavioral problems. ABSTRACT: Purpose The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20-C) in a sample of Chinese adolescents. Method Adolescents (n = 1260) recruited from three schools in mainland China completed the TAS-20-C, the somatization subscale of the Symptom Checklist 90 (SCL-90) and Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). Five different factorial models of the TAS-20 were tested using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Cronbach's α, mean inter-item correlations and predictive validity were also evaluated. Results Among those five different factorial models, the four-factor structure model was suitable and invariant across gender and age in this sample. The TAS-20-C demonstrated adequate internal reliability. Gender and age accounted for insignificant amounts of variability in total TAS-20-C and factor scores. TAS-20-C total and subscale scores were correlated significantly with SCL-90 somatization subscale and CES-D. Girls scored higher than boys on difficulty identifying feelings (DIF) and pragmatic thinking (PR) subscales. DIF and lack of subjective significance or importance of emotions (IMs) subscale scores were higher among younger than among middle and older adolescents. Implications for Practice Validating the TAS-20 in adolescents is quite important to use it in evaluating adolescents' alexithymia, and screen those at risk of 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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".