MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109352797 · doi:10.29252/jcmh.7.2.7

Construction and Determination of Psychometric Properties of Children's Alexithymia Scale

2020· article· en· W3109352797 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bayan Nesai Moghadam, Abolghasem Yaghoobi, Rasool Kordnoghabi, Khosro Rashid

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of Child Mental Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaToronto Alexithymia ScalePsychologyCronbach's alphaConfirmatory factor analysisFeelingExploratory factor analysisPopulationLISRELScale (ratio)Construct validityStructural equation modelingClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychometricsSocial psychologyStatisticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Purpose: Alexithymia is defined as difficulties in identifying and describing the feelings, externally oriented thinking and limited imaginative processes. Most of studies on alexithymia have been performed on adults and less research has been done to assess alexithymia in children. Therefore the purpose of this study was to construct, validate and identify the factor structure of a children's alexithymia scale. Method: This research was a descriptive-survey study. The study population included all the primary school students of Qorveh city in the academic year 2019-2020. A sample of 260 students was randomly selected from this population by cluster sampling. Toronto Alexithymia Scale Data were analyzed by SPSS 22 and LISREL 8.5 using correlation coefficient, exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Also the content validity of this scale was confirmed by four experts in the field of psychology. Results: Factor analysis showed that the five factors of difficulty in identifying the feelings, difficulty in describing the feelings, difficulty in imagination, difficulty in distinguishing the feelings from the physiological changes, and objective thinking with the specific value greater than 1, explained 59.26% of item variance. Results of confirmatory factor analysis showed that model fit indices were good. Findings of this research showed that Cronbach's alpha for the whole scale was 0.70. The value of Cronbach's alpha for each of the factors of difficulty in identifying the feelings, difficulty in describing the feelings, difficulty in imagination, difficulty in distinguishing feelings from physiological changes, and objective thinking were 0.89, 0.81, 0.88, 0.60, and 0.71 respectively. Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that the 26-item Children's Alexithymia Scale is a suitable tool for being used in fields of psychology, education and research and its use is suggested to all professionals and researches in the area of psychology.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Journal of Child Mental HealthSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207