Alexithymia and Impulsivity in Combat Sports – A Tale of Three Measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the psychometric properties of two measures of alexithymia - the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and the Perth Alexithymia Questionnaire (PAQ) - as well as the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale 11 measure of behavioural impulsivity because the psychometric properties of these scales have not been established in athletes. As part of a larger study, 298 participants completed an online survey that included the TAS-20, PAQ, and BIS 11, as well personal- (age and gender) and sport-specific (primary combat sport and level of competition) demographic measures. A unidimensional model was retained for the TAS-20. A unidimensional model with the possibility of multidimensional measure was retained for the PAQ, with the viability of a subscale for Generalised Externally Orientated Thinking supported. The only versions of the BIS that were retainable were unidimensional models for the BIS-15 (a 15-item version of the BIS 11) and the BIS-Brief (an 8-item version of the BIS 11). As expected, the measures of alexithymia were highly correlated. The associations between impulsivity and alexithymia as well as age and alexithymia were small in nature, with none these associations moderated by level of gender, level of competition, or primary sport for the participants. No differences in alexithymia or impulsivity according to gender, level of competition, or primary sport were noted for the participants. Implications of these findings for the measures of alexithymia - the TAS-20 and PAQ - and impulsivity - the BIS-15 and BIS-Brief - examined in the present study with athletes (as well as with other populations) are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".