Assessment of Alexithymia: Pychometric Properties of the Psychological Treatment Inventory-Alexithymia Scale (PTI-AS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study is to investigate the psychometric properties of a new measure of alexithymia, the Psychological Treatment Inventory-Alexithymia Scale (PTI-AS). Method: A group of 778 participants completed the PTI-AS. In order to evaluate aspects of concurrent validity, a part of the sample (n = 116) completed the PTI-AS, the Twenty-Items Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and the Bermond-Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire (BVAQ). In order to evaluate aspects of discriminant validity a group of patients with a diagnosis of Eating Disorders completed the PTI-AS, the TAS-20 and the Eat-ing Disorders Inventory (EDI-3). Results: Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) showed a solid structure with one factor. Results were confirmed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), which yielded good fit indices (CFI =.98; TLI =.95; RMSEA =.08; SRMR =.04). The PTI Alexithymia Scale showed a good degree of internal consistency (α =.88). Correlations between the PTI Alexithymia Scale, the TAS-20 (r =.74, p <.001) and the BVAQ (r =.40, p <.001) were statistically significant, supporting the scale’s concurrent validity. Conclusion: Thanks to its good psychometric properties the PTI-AS can be consid-ered as a brief and useful measure for assessing alexithymia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".