The survey of simultaneous factor structure of alexithymia and type D personality instruments in students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The constructs of alexithymia and type D personality share many common characteristics theoretically and conceptually. Despite the fact that the measurement instruments of both constructs have been utilized widely in psychosomatic researches, there are a few researches, if any, in this area to date. This study aimed to do the simultaneous factor structure of alexithymia and type D personality. This was a descriptive-survey within the category of psychometric studies. All students in Hamadan universities constituted the statistical population of this study. Among the population, the number of 384 students (248 female and 136 male students) was selected through multi-stage sampling method. They answered the scales of Toronto alexithymia and type D personality. The results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of type D (with two subscales) and alexithymia (with three subscales) showed that the five-factor model had a good fit with the data. The results also showed that alexithymia and type D personality are distinct and have separate constructs. However, it is necessary to conduct further researches on clinical and non-clinical samples for a more accurate understanding of the relationship between these two constructs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".