measure some overlapping variance but measure mostly different domains. This is especially indicated by the
low correlations between TSIA subscales and TAS-20 subscales that are purported to measure the same facets.
Construct/Factor Analytic
The authors reported PCA analyses performed with the combined two samples mentioned above, taking out
2-, 3-, and 4-component solutions. The 4-component model (one for each facet) explained 48.4% of the variance,
and was considered the best. A CFA was also performed with the combined two samples, in which eight models
were tested. This provided very acceptable fit for two models; a 4-factor (one for each facet) non-hierarchical
model, and a model with four factors (one for each facet) nested under two higher-order factors ‘Affect
Awareness’ (AA 5DIF & DDF), and ‘Operative Thinking’ (OT 5EOT & IMP). The authors opted for the latter
(χ2/df51.5, GFI 5.88, CFI 5.91, NNFI 5.89, RMSEA 5.05). Comparable results have been described by Grabe
et al. (2009) , and Carretti et al. (2011) , and Insleggers et al. (2013).
Most correlations between subscales as presented by Bagby et al. (2006) were high: AA/OT (.55), DIF/DDF
(.70), DIF/EOT (.52), DIF/IMP (.18), DDF/EOT (.66), DDF/IMP (.37), EOT/IMP (.47). Comparable figures were
found by Grabe et al. (2009) ,Carretti et al. (2011) , and Insleggers et al. (2013).
Criterion/Predictive
Meganck, Vanheule, Inslegers, and Desmet (2009) report significant correlations with ‘The linguistic Inquiry
and Word Count for the TSIA’ (frequency references to others β5.26, and the TSIA subscale EOT (frequency of
communication words β5/C0.33, Complexity communication words β5/C0.52 and frequency references to others
β5.38). The authors concluded that these results may indicate that alexithymic persons will talk more frequently
about other people than themselves. Inslegers et al. (2012) present correlations with subscales Complexity ( /C0.42),
Social Causality ( /C0.31) and Complexity ( /C0.18) of ‘The Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale’ and the
subscales Dominance (.09) and Affiliation ( /C0.38) of ‘The Inventory of Interpersonal Problems’.
Location
Bagby, R.M., Taylor, Parker, J.D.A, & Dickens, S.E. (2006). The development of the Toronto structured inter-
view for alexithymia: Item selection, factor structure, reliability, and concurrent validity. Psychotherapy and
Psychosomatics, 75, 25/C039.
Results and Comments
The above evidence suggests a stable factor structure, acceptable to good reliabilities, including good inter-
rater reliabilities. However, in light of the high intercorrelations, interpretation of the dimension and some
subscale scores may be problematic. The concurrent validity seems insufficient. However, more research is
warranted.
TSIA Sample Items
Are you sometimes puzzled or confused about what emotion you are feeling? (DIF)
Is it usually easy for you to find words to describe your feelings to others? (DDF)
Do you tend to just let things happen rather than trying to understand why they turn out a certain
way? (EOT)
Is it rare for you to fantasize? (IMP) (Taylor, personal communication)
SELF-RATING SCALES
Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20)
(Bagby et al., 1994a ).
Variable
Since existing self-rating scales had insufficient psychometric properties Taylor and coworkers developed the
26-item Toronto alexithymia (TAS). The scale was revised in 1992 (TAS-R) and again revised in 1994 (TAS-20).239 SELF-RATING SCALES
III. EMOTION REGULATION