Psychological Capital Mediating the Relationship Between Childhood Trauma and Alexithymia in Chinese Medical Students: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A much higher prevalence of alexithymia has been found in medical students compared with the general population. This study aimed to test the potential mediating effect of psychological capital on the relationship between childhood trauma and alexithymia in Chinese medical students, thereby providing clues for future interventions aimed at dealing with alexithymia in this population. METHODS: Convenience cluster sampling was used to recruit 1200 medical students in Chongqing, China. This cross-sectional study utilised the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire Short Form, the Toronto Alexithymia Scale, and the Psychological Capital Questionnaire. A structural equation model with maximum likelihood was used to study the mediating effect presented in the aim, and the significance of the mediating effect was examined by the bootstrap method. Multiple-group invariance analyses were also conducted to confirm the stability of the model. RESULTS: A total of 1018 were identified to have valid responses with a rate of 84.83%. 38.4% were males, 61.6% were females. The prevalence of alexithymia was 16.5%. Results of structural equation model showed that childhood trauma was positively related to alexithymia, with a standard path coefficient of 0.219 (C.R.=6.644, P<0.001). The partial mediating effect of psychological capital was 0.060 (P<0.001), accounting for 21.51% of the total effect of childhood trauma on alexithymia. Results of bootstrap method showed that the lower and upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval did not contain 0, and the multiple-group invariance analyses showed that the p values of the changes in the degrees of freedom and chi-square value were greater than 0.05, thus confirming the stability of the model. CONCLUSION: Childhood trauma was a direct predictor of alexithymia among Chinese medical students, and the relationship between these two was partially mediated by psychological capital. Therefore, interventions aimed at enhancing psychological capital in this population may be effective at diminishing alexithymia.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".