tested various models and a three factor model in which DIF and DDF were taken as one factor with two addi-
tional factors for PR, and IM was found have the best fit.
TAS-20 Sample Items
I am often confused about what emotion I am feeling (DIF).
I have physical sensations that even doctors don’t understand (DIF).
It is difficult for me to find the right words for my feelings (DDF).
Being in touch with emotions is essential (EOT).
Bermond-Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire (BVAQ)
(Vorst & Bermond, 2001 ).
Sample
The three samples in the Vorst and Bermond (2001) study consisted of university students Dutch sample: 375
undergraduates (66% females, M521.3 years, SD511.2). French speaking Belgian sample (175 undergraduates;
147 women, M520.6 years, SD54.0), and 129 English students (72% females, M521.4 years, SD54.7).
Variable
Since according to the authors existing alexithymia self-rating scales, did not cover all alexithymia domains as
described by Nemiah and Sifneos (1970a) and Sifneos (1973) ;Vorst and Bermond (2001) published a 40-item self-
rating measure, the BVAQ.
Description
Bermond, Vorst, Vingerhoets, and Gerritsen (1999) presented the 20-item Amsterdam alexithymia Scale, a
BVAQ precursor. Orthogonal factor analysis with five fixed factors produced in two samples comparable five fac-
tors with an equal number of four items (two indicative and two contra-indicative). The five factors were named:
‘Inability to differentiate between or identify emotions’ (IDEN); ‘Inability to fantasize’ (FAN); Inability to analyze
emotions (ANA); inability to experience emotional feelings (EMO); ‘Inability to verbalize emotions’ (VERB).
Revision of the scale was considered necessary, as some subscales had low internal consistencies, and some items
of the subscale ANA did not clearly refer to analyzing emotions. The revised scale was called the Bermond Vorst
Alexithymia Questionnaire (BVAQ; Vorst & Bermond, 2001 ).
The BVAQ covers the same domains as the Amsterdam Alexithymia Scale, but with subscales of eight items
(four indicative and four contra-indicative). The BVAQ was constructed in such a way that the first 20 items, are
comparable to the last 20 items, resulting in two parallel scales (A & B forms), in order to facilitate independent
pre- and post-treatment measurement.
The correlations between the A & B forms are: BVAQ (.81); VERB (.79); FAN (.76); IDEN (.62); EMO (.65);
ANA (.65); and comparable results were found for Belgian and English samples ( Vorst & Bermond, 2001 ), and in
US Anglo and Hispanic samples ( Morera et al., 2005 ). The Cronbach alphas of the 20-item scales are lower as
compared with the 40-item version; BVAQ-A, ranging over three samples (Dutch, Belgian & English) .55 to .61,
mean .58; BVAQ-B .67 to .68, mean .67. All items have face validity for their facet, though four ANA subscale
items refer to whether one believes that emotions should be analyzed and four refer to what one actually does. It
is the experience of the authors that subjects who do not analyze their emotions, but are or have recently been
into insight giving therapy tend to score relatively positive on the four first mentioned items compared to the
four last ones. Scores on the scale can be analyzed as well on a subscale level as on the level of the two dimen-
sions/subscales (BVAQ-COG & BVAQ-AFF, seen below).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Vorst and Bermond (2001) assessed the unidimensionality of subscales by conducting a confirmatory factor
analysis in the Dutch sample. With exception of the subscale VERB ( χ2/df59.33, GFI 5.86, AGFI 5.76, RMSEA
5.15), most indices were acceptable: IDENT ( χ2/df53.66 GFI 5.95, AGFI 5.91, RMSEA 5.08), ANA
(χ2/df53.65 GFI 5.95, AGFI 5.91, RMSEA 5.08), FANTA ( χ2/df54.42 GFI 5.94, AGFI 5.90, RMSEA 5.10),
EMO ( χ2/df55.39 GFI 5.93, AGFI 5.87, RMSEA 5.11). Mu¨ller et al. (2003) reported acceptable fit to the data243 SELF-RATING SCALES
III. EMOTION REGULATION