subscales varied between 0.8 (Somatizing) to 1.1 (Humorless). Lumley et al. (2005) reported correlations between
the OAS and OAS subscales with: (1) the Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale; (2) the Mayer /C0Salovey /C0Caruso
Emotional Intelligence Test and its four subscales; and (3) the Trait Meta-Mood Scale and its three subscales. Of
the 72 correlations calculated, only four correlations exceeded .30.
However, Foran et al. (2012) reported predictive correlations, using a sample of 109 married/cohabitating cou-
ples, between the OAS and the Symptom Checklist-90, the Beck Depression Inventory Revised, the Emotional
Intelligence Scale, the couples Emotional Awareness Scale (measuring emotional awareness of oneself and one’s
partner), and the Marital Satisfaction Inventory Revised (providing eight measurements for various relationship-
relevant domains of satisfaction). Among males, 11 out of the 13 correlations were significant and in the expected
direction (range .20 to .64, mean .45), whereas among females, 12 correlations were significant (range .24 to .54,
mean. 45). Dorard et al. (2008) calculated correlations between OAS scores and those on the BDI-13 and State and
Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Only the STAI-trait correlated significantly with the OAS scores (.37). However,
the authors also reported, unannounced, predictive correlations between OAS and rater BDI and rater STAI trait
as well as rater STAI state scores (respectively .35, .27 & .31).
Mueller et al. (2006) studied a group of 45 psychosomatic inpatients with either high or low OAS scores and
compared responses on an emotional Stroop task. High scoring patients showed significantly less emotional bias
for emotionally negative words, while such results were not found when using the TAS-20. Berthoz et al. (2007)
used the TAS-20 and Dorard et al. (2008) used the TAS-20 and the BVAQ-B to classify individuals into alexithy-
mics vs. non-alexithymics. In both studies, non-alexithymics scored significantly lower on the OAS. Finally,
Haviland et al. (2001) used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses to determine OAS total and subscale
score thresholds for differentiating the clinical from non-clinical members of their group. Sensitivity and specific-
ity of the OAS and subscales were acceptable (sensitivity: range .73 for OAS to .63 Somatization; specificity .80
OAS to .60 Rigid).
Location
Haviland, M.G., Warren, W.L. & Riggs, M.L. (2000). An observer scale to measure alexithymia. Psychosomatics,
41, 385 /C0392.
Results and Comments
Most items refer to features related to alexithymia, and thus do not measure alexithymia directly. Fifteen items
are negatively keyed, however these contra-indicative items are quite unequally spread over the subscales. The
OAS factors explain 66% of the variance. However, the many cross loadings, and correlations between subscales
is problematic. The OAS and its subscales have adequate reliabilities, whereas convergent/concurrent validity
correlations with the M-BIQ and TSIA produced only acceptable results if the same person rated both measure.
Furthermore, the correlations between the OAS and the TAS-20 and BVAQ point to insufficient concurrent valid-
ity. However published studies, indicate convergent validity.
OAS Sample Items
Is a warm person (Distant).
Falls apart when things are really tough (Uninsightful).
Worries much about his or her health (Somatizing).
Has a good sense of humor (Humorless).
Is too self-controlled (Rigid).
Toronto Structured Interview for Alexithymia (TSIA)
(Bagby et al., 2006 ).
Variable
The TSIA is a structured interview with an observation scale. The TSIA manual ( Bagby et al., 2009 ; Grabe et al.,
2014) provides guidelines for the administration (interview questions with probes and prompts), and scoring.
Interviewers/raters should be familiar with the alexithymia construct and be trained in administering the TSIA.237 OBSERVATION SCALES
III. EMOTION REGULATION