Psychometric evaluation of the Norwegian Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS‐20) in a multisite clinical sample of patients with personality disorders and personality problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Psychometric properties of 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) have been widely analyzed, but the validity and psychometric qualities of the TAS-20 in populations with personality disorders are still poorly understood. The aim of the current study was to analyze the factor structure and validity of TAS-20. METHOD: Data were extracted from a multisite clinical sample of patients with personality disorders or personality-related problems referred to specialist mental health services in Norway. RESULTS: With one exception, TAS-20 revealed acceptable psychometric properties. Variations of TAS-20 are associated with other clinical measures of distress and severity. Anxiety disorders, borderline, and avoidant personality disorders were all highly related to levels of TAS-20. The TAS-20 also revealed unique variance not accounted for by subjective distress, symptom disorders, or dysfunctional personality traits. CONCLUSION: The TAS-20 is a relevant instrument for use in assessment of personality disorders, but one subscale should be improved.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".