↓ Skip to main content

The Relationship Between Alexithymia and Emotional Awareness: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Correlation Between TAS-20 and LEAS

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Relationship Between Alexithymia and Emotional Awareness: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Correlation Between TAS-20 and LEAS
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00453
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Maroti, Peter Lilliengren, Indre Bileviciute-Ljungar

Abstract

Background: Alexithymia and emotional awareness may be considered overlapping constructs and both have been shown to be related to psychological and emotional well-being. However, it is not clear how the constructs relate to each other empirically or if they may overlap more or less in different populations. The aim of this review was therefore to conduct a meta-analysis of correlations between the most commonly used measures of alexithymia (i.e., the self-report instrument Toronto Alexithymia Scale; TAS-20) and emotional awareness (i.e., the observer-rated instrument Level of Emotional Awareness Scale; LEAS) and to explore potential moderators of their relationship. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for studies published until the end of February 2018. Study samples were coded as medical conditions, psychiatric disorders and/or healthy controls and sample mean age and gender distribution were extracted. Correlations between the TAS-20 and the LEAS were subjected to a random effect of meta-analysis and moderators were explored in subgroup analyses and meta-regressions. Publication bias was considered. Results: 21 studies reporting on 28 independent samples on correlation analysis were included, encompassing a total of 2857 subjects (57% women). The aggregated correlation between TAS-20 and LEAS was r = -0.122 (95% CI [-0.180, -0.064]; Z = -4.092; p < 0.001), indicating a significant, but weak, negative relationship between the measures. Heterogeneity was moderate, but we found no indication of significant differences between patients with medical conditions, psychiatric disorders or healthy controls, nor that mean age or percentage of female subjects moderated the relationship. The overall estimate became somewhat weaker after adjusting for possible publication bias. Conclusions: Our results indicate that TAS-20 and LEAS measure different aspects of emotional functioning. The small overlap suggests that alexithymia and emotional awareness are distinct constructs of emotional well-being. Clinicians need to assess both aspects when considering treatment options for individual patients. Moreover, from the clinical standpoint, an easy reliable and valid way of measuring emotional awareness is still needed. More research should be focus on the differences between alexithymia and emotional awareness in specific conditions, but also how to integrate self-report instrument and observed based measures in a clinical situation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 23 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 40 46%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 9%
Neuroscience 5 6%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 23 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 April 2018.
All research outputs
#15,495,840
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,969
of 30,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,759
of 296,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#442
of 592 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,291 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 296,837 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 592 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.