Reliability and Validity of the Chinese Version of the Alexithymia Questionnaire for Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To develop the Chinese version of the Alexithymia Questionnaire for Children(AQC) and to examine its reliability and validity.Methods:A total of 584 Chinese middle school students were selected and asked to complete the Chinese version of AQC and the Center Epidemiological Studies of Depression(CES-D).And 54 students were selected from the 584 students and finished the AQC 2 weeks later.The reliability,construct validity and empirical validity were evaluated by inter-item consistency analysis,test-retest analysis,confirmatory factor analysis and correlation analysis.Results:The Cronbach's a coefficient of the AQC was 0.75.The test-retest reliability coefficient was 0.84.The correlation coefficients of the three factors with the total scale score ranged from 0.68 to 0.82.The correlation coefficients of the three factors ranged from 0.23 to 0.52.The factor loadings ranged from 0.12 to 0.73.The indexes of confirmatory factor analysis were as follows: GFI(0.949),NF I(0.870),CFI(0.918),TLI(0.902),χ2/ df(1.850),and REMEA(0.038).The correlation coefficients of alexithymia with depression was 0.56(P0.01).The AQC score in possible depressive children was significant higher than that in non-depression children(total score:(15.5±5.83) vs.(9.72±4.34),P0.01).Conclusion:The Chinese version of the AQC is a reliable and valid measure for assessing alexithymia in middle school students.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".