Alexithymia and internalizing-externalizing problems in late-adopted and community adolescents: a multi-method comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Late-adopted adolescents, i.e. adopted after 12 months, have a greater likelihood to have been exposed to pre-adoption traumatic experiences, showing consequent difficulties in affective awareness. An index of affective awareness’ difficulties during adolescence is alexithymia, which is greater along with early traumas, and it also represents a risk factor for internalizing-externalizing problems during adolescence. However, no studies investigated alexithymia in late-adoptees. Aims: 1) to compare late-adopted adolescents and community controls in alexithymia using a multi-method approach; 2) to explore relations between alexithymia and internalizing-externalizing problems in both groups; 3) to measure convergence between alexithymia assessed with TAS-20 and TSIA in both groups. \nMethods. 30 late-adopted and 30 community adolescents aged 12-18 years old (matched for gender and age) were assessed in alexithymia, using the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and the Toronto Structured Interview for Alexithymia (TSIA), and in internalizing-externalizing problems with the Child Behavior Check List 6-18 years (CBCL). \nResults:1) No between-groups differences in alexithymia and internalizing-externalizing problems were revealed. 2) In both groups, alexithymia’s factor Difficulty to Identifying Feelings (DIF) was positively related to higher total and externalizing problems only when the interview TSIA was employed; 3) TAS-20 and TSIA showed convergent results only in community adolescents. \nDiscussion: Late-adopted teenagers did not differ from community peers in levels of alexithymia and internalizing-externalizing problems, nor in their relationships. However, implications include the greater need to use a multi-method approach to assess alexithymia in adoptees, due to a lack of convergent validity TAS-20/TSIA in this group
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".