Faktorstruktur und Reliabilität der Toronto-Alexithymie-Skala (TAS-20) in der deutschen Bevölkerung
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Die TAS-20 ist das meistverwendete Messinstrument zur Messung des Konstrukts Alexithymie. In dieser Studie wurden die Faktorstruktur des kanadischen Originalmodells sowie zwei weitere Modelle, die aus einer repräsentativen deutschen Stichprobe (n = 1859) gewonnen wurden, an dieser Stichprobe mittels konfirmatorischen Faktoranalysen überprüft. Die internen Konsistenzen wurden mittels Cronbachs α berechnet. Keines der Modelle erreichte eine optimale Anpassung. Die beste und reliabelste Anpassung erzielte eine dreifaktorielle Lösung, die explorativ aus dem deutschen Datensatz gewonnen wurde und die Faktoren „Schwierigkeiten bei der Identifikation und Beschreibung von Gefühlen”, „Externaler Denkstil” und „Wichtigkeit emotionaler Introspektion” enthält. Diese Faktorstruktur unterscheidet sich von der Originalfaktorstruktur der kanadischen Version, erfasst das Alexithymiekonstrukt jedoch ebenso gut.
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 | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".