Stability of alexithymia is low from adolescence to young adulthood, and the consistency of alexithymia is associated with symptoms of depression and dissociation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to investigate the stability of alexithymia from adolescence to young adulthood, as well as the association between alexithymia, peer relationships, and symptoms of depression and dissociation. METHODS: The participants (n = 755, aged 13-18 years) were assessed with self-rated questionnaires and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) at baseline in 2005 and on follow-up in 2011. RESULTS: The changes in the TAS-20 total score (t = -12.26) and the scores for its subscales, difficulty identifying feelings (DIF) (t = -4.04), difficulty describing feelings (DDF) (t = -5.10), and externally oriented thinking (EOT) (t = -18.23), were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Effect sizes (Cohen's d) for the change indicating absolute stability were small for DIF (-0.15) and DDF (-0.19), medium for TAS-20 total (-0.45), and large for EOT (-0.66) scores. Moderate correlations in test-retests with Spearman's ρ (TAS-20 total 0.46, DIF 0.41, DDF 0.39, EOT 0.43) indicated relative stability, whereas low intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) (respectively 0.41, 0.39, 0.37, 0.37) indicated poor reliability of test-retests. In regression analyses, poor relationships with peers, loneliness, and symptoms of depression and dissociation at baseline associated with alexithymia at baseline and on follow-up. Unlike EOT, increases in the TAS-20 total, DIF, and DDF scores during the 6-year follow-up associated with baseline symptoms of depression and dissociation. CONCLUSIONS: Alexithymia in adolescence is not always a reliable predictor of alexithymia in young adulthood. Mental health symptoms appear to affect the consistency of alexithymia during adolescent development.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".