MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389859266 · doi:10.20344/amp.1884

Versão Portuguesa da Escala de Alexitimia de Toronto de 20-itens--I. Adaptação linguística, validação semântica, e estudo de fiabilidade.

2001· article· en· W4389859266 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R Verissimo

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Toronto Alexithymia Scale, namely in its revised version (TAS-20), is nowadays widely used and certainly the most well validated measure of alexithymia; allowing to recognize three distinct aspects of the construct.The aim of the present study is to assess reliability and validity of a Portuguese translation; proceeding in this first part, to the semantic validation and confirmatory structural analysis of the questionnaire, as well as to the analysis of the internal coherence of this structure, and of its reliability in what concerns time stability. Just to later examine validity related aspects as described in a second paper.Fist of all translation and substantiation were properly made as described according with commonly used procedures. Thus resulting in a questionnaire subsequently applied to three distinct populations: university students (N = 468), outpatients attending a routine general practice consultation (N = 50), and patients with inflammatory bowel disease (N = 74).Despite some traceable instability while replicating the original model, confirmatory factorial analysis somehow allowed disclosing the three originally described factors. Nevertheless also resulted some differences susceptible to later being discerned among the factors in what concerns their internal coherence: the questionnaire as a whole is highly reliable, and the same goes for factor 1, in any of the studied samples; less steady results among different groups were found regarding factors 2 and 3. However the test-retest stability brought to evidence, in any of the considered groups, an excellent reliability in all aspects: global score and integrating factors.With these sound psychometric properties of the instrument under scrutiny, the observed cross-cultural variations result as minor, while also considering the aimed comparability in the context of a vast amount of alexithymia studies carried out all over the world.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.006

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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention→French-language works237,207→