Validation of the French version of the Body Awareness Questionnaire: toward a way to assess alexisomia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Awareness of one's own states is a particularly important part of cognition and emotion regulation. Recently, the concept of alexisomia has been used to refer to lack of awareness and expression of somatic sensations. Developing self-reported questionnaires to evaluate alexisomia represents a challenge for clinical psychology and medicine. In this context, we suggested to adapt the Body Awareness Questionnaire in French to measure alexisomia and its relation to alexithymia. In fact, we carried out a backtranslation and studied the validity of the construct in relation to proximal constructs around emotional awareness. Methods: For this study, 610 university students completed questionnaires measuring a three dimensions alexithymia concept [with The Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20)] or the five dimensions alexithymia concept [with The Bermond-Vorts Alexithymia Questionnaire (BVAQ-B)] and alexisomia (with the BAQ). Results: Confirmatory factor analyses showed that the BAQ can be envisaged through 4 factors as well as a unidimensional model to refer to alexisomia. We also found that body awareness was negatively related to scores of alexithymia. Conclusion: Results are discussed in light of the construct of alexisomia and its clinical implications in somatic as well as mental disorders. We suggest that the BAQ, which assesses interoception, can contribute, in part, to the assessment of alexisomia. Like alexithymia, this is a key concept to take into consideration when designing treatment and prevention programs.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".