First validity evidences of the Brazilian brief Toronto Alexitimia Scale (BbTAS-12) using Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling with a sample of adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Alexithymia is a construct characterized by a subclinical inability to identify and describe emotions and an externally-oriented thinking. Objective: To test the three-dimensional theoretical model proposed by Parker et al. (1994) (DDF, DIF, EOT), when evaluated by a brief version of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (BbTAS-12). Method: BbTAS-12 was used in a sample of 801 adolescents (from 13 to 19 years of age), of both genders (52.1% male), in order to test its first evidences of validity via Exploratory Structural Equation (ESEM) Modeling and the internal consistency index. Results: The results of the general model (GFI = .99; AGFI = .97; χ2/gl = 1,14; RMSEA = .035; PCLOSE > .5; CFI = .98; TLI = .97), are excellent and explain 51% of the construct variance, confirming also the three dimension-structure. Both the internal consistency of the total (αt = .72; Omegat = .69) and the theoretically proposed dimensions (αDDF = .67; OmegaDDF = .68; αDIF = .73; OmegaDIF = .73; αEOT = 0,56; OmegaEOT = .57) showed results varying from acceptable to adequate. The internal consistency of the full scale (BbTAS-12) is adequate, with the exception of the EOT dimension. The results are discussed considering the studies conducted with this population in several countries. Conclusion: BbTAS-12 is an especially promising scale for the measure Alexithymia in Brazilian adolescents. However, itis possible to improve the content of some items considering the reading skills and the cultural context of 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.
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 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".