MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335470274 · doi:10.1111/jpm.12298

Cross‐cultural validation of the 20‐item Toronto Alexithymia Scale in Chinese adolescents

2016· article· en· W2335470274 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yu Ling, Yifang Zeng, Hongmei Yuan, Mingtian Zhong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Hunan ProvinceMinistry of Education, IndiaMinistry of Education of the People's Republic of ChinaMinistry of Earth SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsAlexithymiaToronto Alexithymia ScaleCronbach's alphaPsychologyClinical psychologyConfirmatory factor analysisSomatizationChecklistMainland ChinaPsychometricsPsychiatryStructural equation modelingMental healthChina

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations59
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatric and Mental Health NursingSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207