MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414489241 · doi:10.1080/00223891.2025.2559701

Does the Perth Alexithymia Questionnaire Offer a Multidimensional Measurement of the Alexithymia Construct?

2025· article· en· W4414489241 on OpenAlexafffundabout
R. Michael Bagby, Ardeshir Mortezaei, Sharlane C. L. Lau, Graeme J. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Assessment · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsAlexithymiaValence (chemistry)Construct (python library)PsychometricsToronto Alexithymia ScaleConstruct validityPersonality test

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Perth Alexithymia Questionnaire (PAQ) was developed to assess alexithymia as a multidimensional construct consistent with the attention-appraisal model. This study evaluated the hierarchical structure of the PAQ using Goldberg's bass-ackwards method across student and community samples. Results consistently revealed a general alexithymia factor at the highest level of the hierarchy, with limited evidence of stable or distinct dimensions at the lower levels. Although some components, such as externally oriented thinking and positive emotion valence items showed partial differentiation, the overall pattern did not support the proposed five-factor dimensional model, indicating that the PAQ does not provide a reliable multidimensional assessment of the alexithymia construct. While the PAQ was developed to provide a multidimensional profile by incorporating both positive and negative emotion processing, our results indicate that it is best conceptualized and interpreted as measuring a single, unidimensional construct.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personality AssessmentSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207