R Michael Bagby1, James D A Parker2, Graeme J Taylor3. 1. Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: rmichael.bagby@utoronto.ca. 2. Department of Psychology, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of Psychiatry (Emeritus), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Twenty-five years ago, this journal published two articles reporting the development and initial validation of the 20-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). Since then the literature on alexithymia has burgeoned with the vast majority of this research using the TAS-20, including multiple language translations of the scale. METHOD: In this article we review the psychometric literature evaluating various aspects of the reliability and validity of the TAS-20 and examine some of the controversies surrounding the scale and the construct it assesses. We reflect on the ways in which the TAS-20 has advanced the measurement of the construct and theory of alexithymia. We also discuss recent developments and some future directions for the measurement of alexithymia. RESULTS: Although not without some controversy, the preponderance of the accumulated evidence over a 25-year period supports various aspects of the reliability and validity of the TAS-20, including findings from confirmatory factor analytic and convergent and discriminant validity studies which are consistent with Nemiah et al.'s (Nemiah et al., 1976 [3]) and Taylor and colleagues (Taylor et al., 1997 [9]) theoretical formulations and definition of the alexithymia construct. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the accumulated empirical evidence of 25 years, we conclude that the TAS-20 is a reliable and valid instrument and accurately reflects and measures the construct as it was originally defined by Nemiah et al. Nemiah et al. (1976) [3] as composed of deficits in affect awareness and expression and pensée opératoire (operational thinking). Clinicians and researchers can use the TAS-20 to confidently measure alexithymia, the roots of which have foundations in psychosomatic medicine.
OBJECTIVE: Twenty-five years ago, this journal published two articles reporting the development and initial validation of the 20-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). Since then the literature on alexithymia has burgeoned with the vast majority of this research using the TAS-20, including multiple language translations of the scale. METHOD: In this article we review the psychometric literature evaluating various aspects of the reliability and validity of the TAS-20 and examine some of the controversies surrounding the scale and the construct it assesses. We reflect on the ways in which the TAS-20 has advanced the measurement of the construct and theory of alexithymia. We also discuss recent developments and some future directions for the measurement of alexithymia. RESULTS: Although not without some controversy, the preponderance of the accumulated evidence over a 25-year period supports various aspects of the reliability and validity of the TAS-20, including findings from confirmatory factor analytic and convergent and discriminant validity studies which are consistent with Nemiah et al.'s (Nemiah et al., 1976 [3]) and Taylor and colleagues (Taylor et al., 1997 [9]) theoretical formulations and definition of the alexithymia construct. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the accumulated empirical evidence of 25 years, we conclude that the TAS-20 is a reliable and valid instrument and accurately reflects and measures the construct as it was originally defined by Nemiah et al. Nemiah et al. (1976) [3] as composed of deficits in affect awareness and expression and pensée opératoire (operational thinking). Clinicians and researchers can use the TAS-20 to confidently measure alexithymia, the roots of which have foundations in psychosomatic medicine.
Authors: Thomas Suslow; Vivien Günther; Tilman Hensch; Anette Kersting; Charlott Maria Bodenschatz Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2021-06-29 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Roberta Lanzara; Chiara Conti; Martina Camelio; Paolo Cannizzaro; Vittorio Lalli; Rosa Grazia Bellomo; Raoul Saggini; Piero Porcelli Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2020-10-27
Authors: Elke Veirman; Dimitri M L Van Ryckeghem; Gregory Verleysen; Annick L De Paepe; Geert Crombez Journal: PeerJ Date: 2021-06-29 Impact factor: 2.984