Alexithymia is an important mental health construct, but there is continuing debate regarding its definition and measurement. We attempt to resolve this definitional uncertainty in two ways. Firstly, we trace the development of the alexithymia construct, focusing particularly on what we call the Toronto and Amsterdam models, and examine a body of empirical research that shows strong support for the hypothesis that alexithymia consists of three components (difficulty identifying feelings, difficulty describing feelings, and externally orientated thinking). Based on these components, we formulate an alternate theoretical model of alexithymia, the attention-appraisal model of alexithymia, that aligns alexithymia theory with recent advances in the broader emotion regulation field. Secondly, we examine the construct\u27s latent structure by factor analysing data from multiple psychometric measures administered to a community sample (N = 368). Our results suggest statistical support for our model, rather than the Toronto or Amsterdam models. We end by discussing how our model accounts for several unresolved issues within the alexithymia field, including the construct\u27s relation to imaginal capacities and emotional reactivity, whether alexithymia is a deficit or a defence, how it might be addressed in psychiatric treatment, and the discordance that has existed between alexithymia theory and alexithymia measurement. Ethical statement Ethics approval for this project was granted by the Edith Cowan University Human Research Ethics Committee. The guidelines of this committee were followed. All participants provided informed consent for their data to be used
The 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) is a self-report questionnaire designed to measure the three components of alexithymia; difficulty identifying feelings in the self (DIF), difficulty describing feelings (DDF), and externally orientated thinking (EOT). We examined the scale's psychometric properties in Australian nonclinical (N=428) and psychiatric (N=156) samples. In terms of factorial validity, confirmatory factor analyses found the traditional 3-factor correlated model (DIF, DDF, EOT) to be the best and most parsimonious solution, but it did not reach adequate levels of goodness-of-fit in either sample. Several EOT items loaded poorly on their intended factor, and a reverse-scored item method factor was present; the factor structure of the scale was invariant across both samples. A higher-order factor model (with a single higher-order factor) was slightly inferior to the correlated models, but still tenable. The total scale score and DIF and DDF subscales displayed sound internal consistency, but the EOT subscale did not. We conclude that the TAS-20 has, for the most part, adequate psychometric properties, though interpretation should focus only on the total scale score and DIF and DDF subscales; we recommend the EOT subscale score not be used. Implications for clinical use and future revision of the scale are discussed.
Precarious manhood beliefs portray manhood, relative to womanhood, as a social status that is hard to earn, easy to lose, and proven via public action. Here, we present cross-cultural data on a brief measure of precarious manhood beliefs (the Precarious Manhood Beliefs scale [PMB]) that covaries meaningfully with other cross-culturally validated gender ideologies and with country-level indices of gender equality and human development. Using data from university samples in 62 countries across 13 world regions ( N = 33,417), we demonstrate: (1) the psychometric isomorphism of the PMB (i.e., its comparability in meaning and statistical properties across the individual and country levels); (2) the PMB’s distinctness from, and associations with, ambivalent sexism and ambivalence toward men; and (3) associations of the PMB with nation-level gender equality and human development. Findings are discussed in terms of their statistical and theoretical implications for understanding widely-held beliefs about the precariousness of the male gender role.
The present study investigated the reliability and factor structure of scores on a 12‐item version of Phinney's multigroup ethnic identity measure with an Australian sample from diverse cultural backgrounds. Participants were 485 students aged between 10 and 15 years. The results generally supported the reliability of the ethnic identity scale scores and suggested a two‐factor structure of ethnic identity consisting of Affirmation/Belonging, and Exploration. Results concerning the other group orientation scale were mixed. Scores for this scale showed lower internal reliability and its inclusion in confirmatory factor analysis models with the ethnic identity scale showed only mediocre fit. Recommendations for future research include further investigations of the factor structure within ethnic identity as derived from social identity and developmental perspectives.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.