Factorial Validity of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) in Clinical Samples: A Critical Examination of the Literature and a Psychometric Study in Anorexia Nervosa
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is extensive use of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) in research and clinical practice in anorexia nervosa (AN), though it is not empirically established in this population. This study aims to examine the factorial validity of the TAS-20 in a Portuguese AN sample (N = 125), testing four different models (ranging from 1 to 4 factors) that were identified in critical examination of existing factor analytic studies. Results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) suggested that the three-factor solution, measuring difficulty identifying (DIF) and describing feelings (DDF), and externally oriented thinking (EOT), was the best fitting model. The quality of measurement improves if two EOT items (16 and 18) are eliminated. Internal consistency of EOT was low and decreased with age. The results provide support for the factorial validity of the TAS-20 in AN. Nevertheless, the measurement of EOT requires some caution and may be problematic in AN adolescents.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it