Psychometric Properties of the Alexithymia Questionnaire for Children in a Peruvian Sample of Adolescents
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of alexithymia refers to impairments in the ability to identify and communicate feelings. Alexithymia has repeatedly been linked to attachment impairments and different types of symptomatology, in particular, depression and somatic complaints. Very few studies have focused on children or adolescents when addressing this construct. Additionally, to date, there is no self-report questionnaire of alexithymia for such groups in the Spanish language. The main objectives of this study were therefore, (a) to translate and adapt the Alexithymia Questionnaire for Children to Spanish; (b) to assess the factor structure of the adapted questionnaire; and (c) to describe its reliability and validity, in a sample of N = 265 Peruvian adolescents aged 11-18 years. Internal consistency was acceptable for the DIF subscale (α = .74), and low for the DDF and EOT subscales (α = .55, and α = .47 respectively). A composite scale based on previous studies that merges DIF and DDF into one scale had an α = .75. Regarding the factor structure, a two-factor solution showed to have the best fit with the data (RMSEA = .05, SMRM = .04, CFI = .94). Convergent validity analyses indicated significant associations between alexithymia and attachment measurements (that ranged from r = - .15, p < .05, to r = .31, p < .05), somatic complaints (r = .38, p < .05, to r = .41, p < .05), and both internalizing and externalizing symptoms (r = .37, p < .05, to r = .46, p < .05). Future assessment and modifications are recommended for the EOT scale.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it