(28 males; 55 females [two failed to indicate their gender], mean age 21.47 years, SD 55.24) and (2) 83 undergrad-
uates (22 males; 61 females; M 521.47 years, SD 55.24, and 22 males; M 525.41 years, SD 58.00).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Vorst and Bermond (2001) presented acceptable fit indices for unidimensionality; DDF ( χ2/df53.67, GFI 5.90,
AGFI5.82, RMSEA 5.07), DIF ( χ2/df510.18, GFI 5.94, AGFI 5.89, RMSEA 5.12) EOT ( χ2/df53.62, GFI 5.93,
AGFI5.88, RMSEA 5.09). Bagby et al. (1994a) reported Cronbach alpha coefficients for the TAS-20 as found in
two samples: TAS-20 (.80 & .83); DIF (.79 & .81), DDF (.75 & .75), and EOT (.66 & .64). Slightly different but still
comparable figures have been published ( Loas et al., 2001; Simonsson-Sarnecki et al., 2000; Parker, Taylor, &
Bagby 2003; Mu ¨ller, Bu ¨hner, & Ellgring 2003; Cleland, Magura, Foote, Rosenblum, & Kosanke 2005; Meganck,
Vanheule, & Desmet 2008; Culhane, Morera, Watson, & Millsap 2009; Gignac, Palmer, & Stough 2007; Leising,
Grande, & Faber 2009; Parker, Eastabrook, Keefer, & Wood 2010 ). The alpha coefficient of the subscale EOT was
in four of the above mentioned studies low ( #.6).
Test/C0Retest
Bagby et al. (1994a) reported a three-week stability coefficient of .77. Sa¨kkinen, Kaltiala-Heino, Ranta, Haataja,
and Joukamaa (2007) reported a comparable result (.76), while higher reliabilities were reported by Besharat
(2008) , and Berthoz and Hill (2005) : .88 and .80, respectively. Lower coefficients were reported by Richards,
Fortune, Griffiths, and Main (2005) ,Kojima, Frasure-Smith, and Lespe ´rance (2001) (.69 and .47), however, these
were over larger test /C0retest intervals of 10 weeks and six months, respectively.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
The concurrent validities with most other scales have been described before in the concerning sections. In
addition Vorst and Bermond (2001) reported a correlation between the TAS-20 and BVAQ (see section BVAQ) of
.64, and comparable correlations have been reported by Mu¨ller et al. (2003) of .71, and Morera, Culhane, Watson,
and Skewes (2005) of .68 and .59. Some authors ( Zech, Luminet, Rime ´, & Wagner 1999; Berthoz & Hill, 2005;
Deborde et al., 2007; Berthoz et al., 2007; Sauvage and Loas, 2006 ) have used the 20-item-BVAQ-B version (see
section BVAQ), although there is relatively more variance in these scores, the mean value does not deviate (range
.31 to .77, mean .60). Since the BVAQ measures two orthogonal alexithymia dimensions, the BVAQ provides two
sumscores: BVAQ-COG & BVAQ-AFF, consequently, the correlations should have been calculated with these
dimensions. Vorst and Bermond reported a correlation between the TAS-20 and BVAQ-COG (.80). Mu¨ller et al.
(2003) reported a correlation of .71, Morera et al. (2005) .68 & .59, and Goerlich, Aleman, and Martens (2012) .85.
Whereas two authors working with the 20-item BVAQ-B ( Berthoz & Hill, 2005; Sauvage, Berthoz, Deborde,
Lecercle, & Loas 2005 ) reported correlations respectively of .67 (mean value of six correlations) and .52. Finally,
Vorst and Bermond (2001) present correlations between the TAS-20 and BVAQ-AFF of /C0.04, and Sauvage et al.
(2005) present .12. From these figures it is clear that the TAS-20 and the BVAQ-COG measure the same domain,
whereas the BVAQ-AFF and TS20 cover different alexithymia domains.
Construct/Factor Analytic
An EFA with oblique rotation of the intercorrelations of the 20 items resulted in a 3-factor solution: F1 Difficulty
in identifying feelings (DIF), F2 Difficulty describing feelings (DDF), and F3 Externally-oriented thinking (EOT).
The factor loadings varied between .35 and .64 (mean .51); DIF (range .40 to .59, mean .55), DDF (.47 to .64, mean
.56), EOT (.35 to 61, mean .44). There was only one cross loading exceeding .30. The three factors explained 31% of
the variance: DIF 12.6%, DDF 9.6%, and EOT 8.8% ( Bagby et al., 1994a ). Comparable percentages of explained vari-
ance have been established by Haviland and Reise (1996b), whereas Fukunishi et al. (1997) ,Vorst and Bermond
(2001) ,Kojima et al 2001 ),Richards et al. (2005) , and Mattila et al. (2010) found somewhat higher percentages.
Confirmative factor analysis (oblique, three factors) in two samples produced acceptable fit indices. Student sam-
ple: ( N5401, χ2/df53.01, GFI 5.89, AGFI 5.86, RMS 5.069); psychiatric outpatient sample: ( N5218,
χ2/df52.14, GFI 5.86, AGFI 5.83 and RMS 5.070). More or less comparable fit results for the three factor model
were found by, for instance Zech et al. (1999) ;Simonsson-Sarnecki et al. (2000) ;Cleland et al. (2005) ; and Sa¨kkinen
et al. (2007) ; and a better fit by Vorst and Bermond (2001) ;Parker, Bagby, Taylor, Endler, & Schmitz (1993, 2003) ;
De Gucht, Fontaine, and Fischler (2004) ;Besharat (2008) ;Culhane et al. (2009) ; and Loas et al. (2001). Mattila et al.241 SELF-RATING SCALES
III. EMOTION REGULATION