MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7044134914

Validity of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) in an Inpatient Population

2012· article· en· W7044134914 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigiNole (Florida State University) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaConstruct validityToronto Alexithymia ScaleDiscriminant validityPredictive validityScale (ratio)PsychometricsConstruct (python library)Population
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This archival study sought to investigate the construct validity of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) when used with an inpatient clinical population. The TAS-20 is a self-report instrument that measures alexithymia, a psychological construct that encompasses 4 main cognitive traits: difficulty identifying feelings, difficulty describing feelings to others, externally oriented thinking, and a limited imaginal capacity. Seven separate studies were employed: Study 1 explored internal consistency; Study 2 explored factor structure; Study 3 explored criterion-based predictive validity; Study 4 explored convergent validity; Study 5 explored discriminant validity; and Studies 6 and 7 explored the relationship between TAS-20 scores and Axis I and Axis II diagnoses. The participants were 169 inpatients at a state mental hospital in the Southeast. Participants were administered the TAS-20 while participating in the hospital's Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) program between 2002 and 2011. Study results revealed a reliability coefficient of .793 and a two factor solution. However, subsequent analyses revealed that removal of the reverse score items increased internal consistency and that the best solution was a 1 factor solution with the TAS-20 reverse scored items removed. TAS-20 scores were found to be weakly predictive of both self-harm and acting-out behavioral incidents. A significant, but weak, positive correlation was found between TAS-20 scores and a measure of trauma. There was no significant relationship found between TAS-20 scores and a measure of verbal IQ. No relationship was found between TAS-20 scores and either Axis I or II diagnoses. Overall, the research findings provided weak support for the construct validity of the TAS-20 when used with a severely mentally ill inpatient population. Due to its questionable construct validity, the TAS-20 should be used with inpatient clinical populations in conjunction with other alexithymia measures, clinical interviews and behavioral observations. Because of the TAS-20's cost effectiveness and ease of use, further refinement of the items of the TAS-20 is recommended along with further research on the construct validity of a modified instrument.

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)0.000
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.243
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigiNole (Florida State University)Same topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207