MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401277343 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1356643

Development of a structured interview for the modified version of the Beth Israel Hospital psychosomatic questionnaire for alexithymia

2024· article· en· W4401277343 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gen Komaki, Takanobu Baba, Toshiyuki Yoshida, Tatsuyuki Arimura, Yoshiya Moriguchi, Motonari Maeda

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceNational Center of Neurology and Psychiatry
KeywordsAlexithymiaPsychologyPsychotherapistClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: An observer-rated questionnaire for alexithymia based on the original 17-item Beth Israel Hospital Psychosomatic Questionnaire for Alexithymia (BIQ) was developed by Sifneos in 1973 and modified into a 12-item version of BIQ by Taylor et al. in 1997. However, it has rarely been used in a clinical or research context and studies have not given satisfactory inter-rater reliability for the 12-item version. Objective: To develop a structured interview in Japanese for the12-item modified version of BIQ (m-SIBIQ) to determine the reliability and validity of the m- scores and its factor structure model. Methods: Ninety-two Japanese young adults were interviewed. The inter-rater reliability of the m-SIBIQ was assessed by exploratory factor analysis. For the concurrent and convergent validities, correlation analysis was done between the scores of m-SIBIQ and the self-reported questionnaires: 20-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI), Emotional Empathy Scale (EES), Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Goodness of fit of the structure model of the m-SIBIQ was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis, and the results were examined through stepwise multiple regression analysis. Results: Good reliability was obtained for the total score of m-SIBIQ: Cronbach's α.950 (p<.001) and ICC.75(p<.05). The validity of the factor structure was obtained by confirmatory factor analysis using covariance. The model of the alexithymia constructs was configured by the operative thinking (la pensée opératoire) and affect awareness components. The stepwise multiple regression analysis extracted the total score of m-SIBIQ as significantly, negatively correlated with the Openness to experience score of NEO-FFI and significantly, positively correlated with the emotionally chilly score of EES and the score of difficulty describing feelings (DDF) of TAS-20. There were no correlations between the m-SIBIQ and BDI-II scores. Conclusion: For Japanese young adults, the m-SIBIQ is a reliable and valid instrument for overcoming weaknesses of the self-reported procedures by bringing to light the alexithymia construct and principal dimensions.

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)0.007
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Psychiatry→Same topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments→French-language works237,207→