Alexithymia
DOI: 10.1017/9781108241595.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessment of the Alexithymia Construct

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
25
0

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 96 publications
0
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In all included studies, alexithymia was assessed with one of the versions of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale, most of which with the 20-item version (TAS-20) [22]. The TAS-20 is the most used assessment instrument for alexithymia and is considered the gold standard in the field.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In all included studies, alexithymia was assessed with one of the versions of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale, most of which with the 20-item version (TAS-20) [22]. The TAS-20 is the most used assessment instrument for alexithymia and is considered the gold standard in the field.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, this subscale sometimes has poor reliability (e.g., Müller et al, 2004), or inconsistent relationships with other constructs (e.g., Watters, Taylor, Quilty, et al, 2016), and does not load on the same factor as established markers of emotional reactivity when subjected to factor analysis (e.g., Preece et al, 2017). Preece et al (2017) and Sekely, Bagby, and Porcelli (2018) have both suggested that these observed inconsistencies may be because the BVAQ difficulty emotionalizing subscale does not differentiate between negative emotional reactivity and positive emotional reactivity. When other dedicated measures of emotional reactivity do, negative reactivity and positive reactivity have been found to be separable dimensions that are negatively correlated with each other (e.g., Becerra, Preece, Campitelli, & Scott-Pillow, 2019;Ripper, Boyes, Clarke, & Hasking, 2018).…”
Section: Empirical Findingsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Numerous studies have supported the reliability and validity of the TAS-20 (Bagby et al, 1994a, b;Parker et al, 2003;Taylor et al, 2003). The internal consistency of the total score of the TAS-20 is considered good (Sekely, Bagby, & Porcelli, 2018;Bagby et al, 1994a), and was acceptable in the current sample (Cronbach's α = 0.74).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 76%