The Toronto Alexithymia Scale–20 is arguably the most utilized measure of alexithymia. Although a three-factor solution has been found by numerous studies, these findings are not universal. This article examined and compared 18 competing factor structures for the Toronto Alexithymia Scale–20, which included between one and four correlated latent factor structures, common methods models that accounts for negatively worded items, and bifactor models. Although the two-factor bifactor model with a common methods factor had the better model fit compared with the other 17 models examined, it still did not achieve the requisites of a good model fit across all model fit indices. Issues stemmed primarily from the externally oriented thinking factor and the negatively worded items. Post hoc analyses indicated that a two-factor bifactor model with the negatively worded items dropped achieved the requisites of a good model fit and can be treated as a unidimensional measure despite the presence of multidimensionality. Multiple-group analysis indicated that the factor loadings were invariant across U.S. and Philippines samples. After controlling for noninvariance at the item intercept level, the Philippines sample had a higher alexithymia general score compared with the U.S. sample.

No abstract

The Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test's factor structure varies depending on population and culture. Because of this inconsistency, this article examined the factor structure of the test and conducted a factorial invariance test between a U.S. and a Philippines college sample. Confirmatory factor analyses indicated that a three-factor solution outperforms the one- and two-factor solution in both samples. Factorial invariance analyses further supports the confirmatory findings by showing that factor loadings were generally invariant across groups; however, item intercepts show non-invariance. Country differences between factors show that Filipino consumption factor mean scores were significantly lower than their U.S. counterparts.

No abstract

A large body of empirical work has shown the role that parenting plays in the development of prosocial behaviors of children. Parenting styles (e.g., democratic versus authoritarian) and parenting practices (e.g., inductive discipline versus guilt-shame induction) in particular have been empirically linked to prosocial behaviors as well as numerous other well-being indicators in children. What is less understood is the role that culture and cultural context might play in the parenting-prosocial nexus. This chapter explores the contributions of culture comparative and in-depth cultural studies of parenting and children’s prosocial behaviors. These studies extend the range of variability of parenting dimensions and contexts as they relate to children’s prosocial outcomes – providing a means of testing the generalizability of theory in a wider range of settings, as well as in identifying facets of parenting and family life that may otherwise be neglected in current scholarship. Collectively, studies support traditional socialization theories and show how numerous parenting dimensions are linked to prosocial outcomes in children in several cultural communities. Nonetheless, emerging research suggests culturally embedded processes that impact upon the parenting and prosocial link - meriting closer attention for future scholarship.