| Title |
Factorial Validity of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) in Clinical Samples: A Critical Examination of the Literature and a Psychometric Study in Anorexia Nervosa
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10880-018-9562-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sandra Torres, Marina P. Guerra, Kylee Miller, Patrício Costa, Inês Cruz, Filipa M. Vieira, Isabel Brandão, António Roma-Torres, Magda Rocha |
| Abstract |
There is extensive use of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) in research and clinical practice in anorexia nervosa (AN), though it is not empirically established in this population. This study aims to examine the factorial validity of the TAS-20 in a Portuguese AN sample (N = 125), testing four different models (ranging from 1 to 4 factors) that were identified in critical examination of existing factor analytic studies. Results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) suggested that the three-factor solution, measuring difficulty identifying (DIF) and describing feelings (DDF), and externally oriented thinking (EOT), was the best fitting model. The quality of measurement improves if two EOT items (16 and 18) are eliminated. Internal consistency of EOT was low and decreased with age. The results provide support for the factorial validity of the TAS-20 in AN. Nevertheless, the measurement of EOT requires some caution and may be problematic in AN adolescents. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 14 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 13 | 37% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 March 2018.
All research outputs
#5,811,307
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings
#113
of 444 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,321
of 329,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings
#14
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 444 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,466 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.