MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406025996 · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-82958-8

Validity and reliability of the brief form of the normative male alexithymia scale among Chinese patients after radical prostatectomy

2025· article· en· W4406025996 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fei Wang, Xiaoli Zhang, Limin Huang, Xinyue Chang, Yoosun Chu, Wang Li, Wei Jia, Baowei Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaConfirmatory factor analysisConstruct validityAlexithymiaExploratory factor analysisClinical psychologyPsychologyToronto Alexithymia ScaleValidityReliability (semiconductor)Content validityScale (ratio)Concurrent validityStructural equation modelingMedicinePsychometricsStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alexithymia, a cognitive and emotional deficit characterized by difficulty in expressing emotions and identifying feelings, poses significant challenges in healthcare settings. Developing a reliable and valid tool to measure alexithymia in post-prostatectomy patients would not only aid healthcare professionals in identifying at-risk individuals but also facilitate early intervention and targeted support. This study aimed to translate the Brief Form of the Normative Male Alexithymia Scale (NMAS-BF) into Simplified Chinese, evaluate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version, and explore its influencing factors. The English version of the NMAS-BF was translated into Chinese according to Brislin's translation guidelines. A survey was administered to 430 patients who had undergone radical prostatectomy across four tertiary-grade A hospitals in China. To assess test-retest reliability, 30 patients completed the survey twice. Data analysis was performed using SPSS 26.0 and AMOS 22.0. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to evaluate the content validity, construct validity, reliability, and concurrent validity of the translated NMAS-BF. Additionally, Pearson's correlation, t-tests, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to identify factors influencing the NMAS-BF. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the Chinese version of the NMAS-BF was 0.856. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for the total scale was 0.938, indicating good stability. Content validity was satisfactory, with exploratory factor analysis revealing a single-factor model that accounted for 58.965% of the variance. Confirmatory factor analysis (χ²/df = 1.371, RMSEA = 0.041) demonstrated acceptable construct validity. Statistically significant differences in alexithymia levels were observed across patients with varying educational levels, family residence, household monthly income, and number of children. Perceived stress, mutuality, social impact, and self-esteem were identified as significant factors influencing alexithymia. This study initially translated the Brief Form of the Normative Male Alexithymia Scale (NMAS-BF) into Chinese and demonstrated its psychometric validity for assessing alexithymia in patients post-radical prostatectomy. By identifying alexithymic patterns and their contributing factors, the research aims to improve emotional expression and enhance the mental well-being of Chinese patients undergoing this procedure. Furthermore, the factors identified in the Chinese version of the NMAS-BF may provide valuable theoretical insights for future intervention studies.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific Reports→Same topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments→French-language works237,207→