Überprüfung und Validierung der 26-Item Toronto Alexithymie-Skala anhand einer repräsentativen Bevölkerungsstichprobe/ Testing and validation of the 26-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale in a representative population sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the authorized German version of the 26-item Toronto alexithymia scale (TAS-26). Due to the fact, that the revised version of this questionnaire (TAS-20) displays low reliability concerning the scale "external oriented thinking" in the German version, we decided to reinvestigate all TAS-26 items. In a representative sample of the German population (N=2047), the four factor structure of the original version could be reproduced and reliabilities for the four scales as well as for a pooled 5th scale (scales 1 to 3) varied satisfyingly between r=.67 to r=.84. TAS-scale no. 4 "reduced daydreaming" correlated negatively with other TAS scales in this German version also, so we can not recommend to use this construct for the study of alexithymia. Scale values proved to be independent from age and sex, whereas a clear relation with education could be detected: persons with low education scored high on alexithymia scales. To validate the German version of the TAS-26, a mood questionnaire and a body experience questionnaire were used. It could be shown that high alexithymia scores were associated with negative body image and undesirable emotions. It is discussed whether the latter correlation is due to a methodological artefact, since persons with high alexithymia scores tend to prefer middle categories of the mood questionnaire.
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 | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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; 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".