Struktur Internal dan Validitas Konstruk dari Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) dengan Sampel Mahasiswa pada Universitas di Jakarta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractAlexithymia is a situation of extreme activity in relation to emotions, they seem insensitive to the surrounding environment. Subjects with alexithymia tendencies have difficulty identifying, describing, and interpreting their own feelings. At this time there are 2 measuring devices that are already well known alexithymia in the world, namely: Bermond Vorst Alexithymia Quastionaire (BVAQ) and Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). From the existing literature, the more widely used is TAS-20 which consists of 20 items, to measure three dimensions, namely Difficulty Identifying Feeling (DIF), Difficulty Describing Feeling (DDF) and Externally Oriented Thinking (EOT). This research re-examines whether the existing dimensions do represent measurements of alexithymia in accordance with its operational definition. The subject of this study was a sample of a normal adult population of 250 adults, taken using non-probability sampling techniques from four universities in Jakarta. The author finds that the three dimensions conceptualized in TAS-20 are somewhat blurred, and the EOT dimension tends to dominate. In testing with a one-factor model (unidimensional), even with the assumption that all items are parallel, it turns out to be compatible with the data. But only 16 of the 20 TAS-20 items meet this requirement. That is, for the sake of scoring it would be more appropriate if the three dimensions were considered to be absent, and the use of a score obtained from the sum of a score of each item could be justified. Some suggestions are given for the use of TAS-20 in Indonesia.AbstrakAlexithymia adalah situasi aktivitas ekstrim yang dalam kaitannya dengan emosi, mereka terlihat tidak peka terhadap lingkungan sekitar. Subjek dengan kecenderungan alexithymia mengalami kesulitan mengidentifikasi, mendeskripsikan, dan menginterpretasikan perasaannya sendiri. Pada saat ini ada 2 alat ukur alexithymia yang sudah cukup dikenal didunia yaitu: Bermond Vorst Alexithymia Quastionaire (BVAQ) dan Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). Dari literatur yang ada, yang lebih banyak digunakan adalah TAS-20 yang terdiri dari 20 items, untuk mengukur tiga dimensi yaitu Difficulty Identifying Feeling (DIF), Difficulty Describing Feeling (DDF) dan Externally Oriented Thinking (EOT). Penelitian ini menguji kembali apakah dimensi yang ada itu memang mewakili pengukuran terhadap alexithymia sesuai dengan definisi operasionalnya. Subjek penelitian ini merupakan sampel dari populasi orang normal yang berusia dewasa awal berjumlah 250 orang, yang diambil menggunakan teknik non-probability sampling dari empat Univeritas di Jakarta. Penulis menemukan bahwadari tiga dimensi yang dikonsepkan pada TAS-20 agak kabur batasannya, dan dimensi EOT cenderung mendominasi. Pada pengujian dengan model satu faktor (unidimensional), bahkan dengan disertai asumsi bahwaseluruh item bersifat paralel, ternyata fit dengan data.Tetapi hanya 16 dari 20 item TAS-20 yang memenuhi syarat ini. Artinya, untuk kepentingan skoring akan lebih tepat jika tiga dimensi tersebut dianggap tidak ada, dan penggunaan sekor yang diperoleh dari penjumlahan sekor setiap item dapat dibenarkan. Beberapa saran diberikan bagi penggunaan TAS-20 di Indonesia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".