The Structure of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20): A Meta-Analytic Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alexithymia is defined as the inability of persons to describe their emotional states, to identify the feelings of others, and a utilitarian type of thinking. The most popular instrument to assess alexithymia is the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). Despite its widespread use, an ongoing controversy pertains to its internal structure. The TAS-20 was originally constructed to capture three different factors, but several studies suggested different factor solutions, including bifactor models and models with a method factor for the reversely keyed items. The present study examined the dimensionality of the TAS-20 using summary data of 88 samples from 62 studies (total N = 69,722) with meta-analytic structural equation modeling. We found support for the originally proposed three-dimensional solution, whereas more complex models produced inconsistent factor loadings. Because a major source of misfit stems from translated versions, the results are discussed with respect to generalizations across languages and cultural contexts.
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 | 0.054 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".