Bibliographic record
Abstract
연구목적: 1985년 Taylor 등이 발표한 TAS는 감정표현불능증을 측정하는 도구로서 1992년 TAS-20으로 개정되어 여러 나라에서 신뢰도와 타당도가 검증되었다. 본 연구는 혼재되어 쓰이고 있는 세 가지 TAS 한국판 감정표현불능증 척도를 비교하여 가장 신뢰도와 타당도가 높은 척도를 통일하여 사용하고자 시도되었다. 첫 번째 척도는 1996년 이양현 등이 개발한 것{이후 TAS-20K(1996)}이다. 두 번째 척도는 위 연구에서 어떤 문제를 묘사하기보다는 분석하는 편이다라고 직역한 5번 항목의 결과가 예측치와 상반되어 '분석하다'라는 단어에 대한 우리나라와 서양의 문화적 견해 차이를 고려하여 5번 문항을 수정 제안한 것{이후 TAS-20K(2003)}으로서, 타당도와 신뢰도의 호전을 검증하지 않은 것이다. 세 번째 척도는 1997년 신현균과 원호택이 TAS-20을 번역한 것(이후 S-TAS)으로 20항목의 원래 항목 수를 23개로 수정 번역한 특성을 지니고 있다. 방 법: 의학과 학생 408명을 대상으로 세 가지 척도의 서로 다른 항목, 즉 TAS-20K(1996)의 20항목, TAS-20K(2003)의 수정 제안된 1항목, S-TAS의 23항목을 무작위로 배열하여 구성된 하나의 척도를 사용하여 검사를 시행하였다. 세 가지 척도의 신뢰도를 비교하기 위해 내적 일치도(Cronbach $\alpha$ coefficients)를 구하였고 타당도를 비교하기 위해 확증적 요인 분석(confirmatory factor analysis)을 실시하였다. 결 과: TAS-20K(2003)은 TAS-20K(1996)보다 내적 일치도가 호전되었다. TAS-20K(2003)과 S-TAS는 모두 원척도의 세 요인 구조를 재현하였고, 우수한 내적 일치도와 받아들일 만한 타당도를 보여 주었다. 그러나 S-TAS는 19번 항목이 요인 2와 상관성이 낮게 나타났고, 이전 연구에서와 같이 2번 항목과 요인 1간의 상관성이 재현되지 않아 본래 요인 2에 속한 19번 항목을 요인 1에도 포함시키는 것이 타당하지 않았다. 결 론: TAS-20K(2003)과 S-TAS는 모두 원본 TAS-20의 번역판으로서 우수한 타당도와 받아들일만한 신뢰도를 보였다. 그러나 TAS-20K(2003)은 원본과 동일한 항목 수와 구조, 동일한 점수 체계를 유지하고 있으며 TAS-20은 이미 15개 이상의 언어로 번역되어 있는 도구이나, S-TAS는 항목 수 및 점수 체계, 요인 구조를 원본 TAS-20과 다르게 변형시켜 국제적인 비교 연구를 위해서는 제한점이 있다고 하겠다. 따라서 향후 감정표현불능증의 국내 연구에서 TAS-20K(2003), 즉 TAS-20K를 사용하는 것이 더 적절할 것으로 제안한다. 【Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare reliability and validity of three Korean versions of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia scale and to confirm the most reliable and validated Korean translation of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale for both clinical and research purpose in Korea. The first one was a Korean version of the 20-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale developed by Lee YH et al in 1996 which was designated as TAS-20K(1996) in this study. This scale had a problem with one item due to the cultural difference regarding the word 'analyzing' between western culture and Korean culture. The second one was the revised version of TAS-20K(1996) on that point by Lee YH et al in 1996 without validation which was designated as TAS-20K(2003) in this study. The third one was a 23-item Korean version developed by Sin HG and Won HT in 1997, which was somewhat different from the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale(TAS-20) in the number of total item, the content of some items and the scoring method. This scale was designated as S-TAS here. Methods: 408 medical students were tested with one scale composed of all the different items randomly arranged from the three versions. We evaluated goodness-of-fit and Cronbach $\alpha$ coefficients of three scales for reliability. We used confirmatory factor analysis to compare validity. Results: TAS-20K(2003) showed that it had better internal consistency than TAS-20K(1996), which implied that the cultural difference should be considered in the Korean translation. Both TAS-20K(2003) and S-TAS replicated three-factor structures and had adequacy of fit, good internal consistency and acceptable validity. However, S-TAS had one item with poor item-factor correlation and didn't show high correlation between item 2 and factor 1 as before in 1997. Conclusion: Although S-TAS had added 3 items and changed the content of two items, it didn't show better reliability and validity than TAS-20K(2003). Therefore it is proposed to use TAS-20K (2003) as the Korean version of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale(TAS-20K) for international communication of results of Alexithymia research. It has good internal consistency and validity and maintains original items, the same construct and scoring method as the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale.】
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 | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.010 |
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".