Comparison of the psychometric properties of two self-report questionnaires measuring Alexithymia ; Confirmatory factor analysis of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale and the Bermond-Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Une etude comparative des proprietes psychometriques de deux echelles de mesure de l'alexithymie, la Toronto Alexithymia Scale 20 items (TAS-20) et le Bermond-Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire (BVAQ), a ete realisee a l'aide d'une analyse factorielle confirmatoire, en testant l'adequation de la structure factorielle theorique de ces echelles aux donnees obtenues sur un echantillon de 437 sujets sains. Par ailleurs, la validite externe du BVAQ a ete etudiee en le comparant a la TAS-20. Les resultats suggerent une bonne adequation au modele propose pour les deux echelles. Cependant, un certain nombre d'arguments en faveur de l'utilisation du BVAQ, et notamment de sa version abregee, sont discutes.
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 | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".