Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
The correlations between the OAS and the M-BIQ have been presented above.
In addition, Meganck et al. (2011) reported a positive correlation of .37 between the OAS and TSIA ,and a posi-
tive correlation with ‘alexithymia’ as measured by their scale (see footnote 1) of .59, respectively. Berthoz et al.
(2005, 2007) ,Lumley et al. (2005) ;Yao et al. (2005) ;Mueller et al., (2006) ;Dorard et al. (2008) and Foran et al.
(2012) reported positive correlations with the TAS-20 varying between .25 and .41 (mean .34); between the OAS
and TAS-20 subscales ranging from .03 to .40 (mean .23) and between TAS-20 and OAS subscales ranging from
.02 to .38 (mean .23). Thorberg et al. (2010) and Meganck et al. (2010, 2011) report low correlations; OAS with
TAS-20: .09, .23 & .28; correlations OAS with TAS-subscales range .03 /C0.22, mean .12; TAS with OAS-subscales
range .02 /C0.22, mean .12. The raters in the Thorberg et al. and Meganck et al. studies were either clinical psycholo-
gists at masters or doctoral level, or attending therapists. Thus, the very disappointing results may not be
explained by assuming that the raters had serious shortcoming in their psychological skills or knowledge of their
patients.
Berthoz et al. (2007) and Dorard et al. (2008) measured alexithymia using the BVAQ-B and reported OAS/
BVAQ-B correlations of .31 and .46, those between the OAS and BVAQ-B subscales ranging from .11 to .37 (mean
.24), with those between the BVAQ-B and OAS subscales ranging from .04 to .39 (mean .25). However; the BVAQ
provides two independent sumscores, the correlations should have been calculated with these two sumscores
(see section BVAQ).
Construct/Factor Analytic
An EFA (principal axis factoring procedure) was carried out using a sample of 467 university students (rating
either their family members, girlfriends/boyfriends, or other friends), that resulted in five factors labeled:
‘Distant’ (10 items, 17%), ‘Uninsightful’ (8 items, 14.2%), ‘Somatization’, (5 items, 9.7%), ‘Humorless’ (5 items,
13.6%), and ‘Rigid’ (5 items, 11.1%) ( Haviland et al., 2000 ). However, 23 of the 33 items had cross loadings $.30
indicating a less than optimal simple structure solution. The authors also presented a CFA using a sample of 352
university students. The model test comprised the five primary factors and a second order factor (alexithymia)
with within-dimension item parcels of 2 to 4 items in each parcel and 2 or 3 parcels per dimension. This model
provided a good fit to the data ( χ2/df51.33, CFI 5.99). Similar results using item-parcels have been reported
(Haviland et al., 2001; Haviland et al., 2002; Berthoz et al., 2005; and Yao et al., 2005 ). However, Meganck et al.
(2010) pointed out that unidimensionality of the scales is an important requirement for the use of parcels, and if
not met, item parceling can disguise misspecified models and erroneously indicate a good fit for bad models.
Given the many cross loadings mentioned above, we may assume that this condition is not fulfilled. Also, many
of the studies mentioned above allowed, post hoc relaxations of the model to improve the fit. Because of these sta-
tistical shortcomings, Meganck et al. (2010) studied the factor structure of the Dutch OAS version, in both a clini-
cal sample (201 psychiatric inpatients, rated by their attending psychologist and a nonclinical sample (264, rated
by university students). Three models were measured in both samples: (1) Haviland’s model with five first-order
factors (Distant, Uninsightful, Somatizing; Humorless, Rigid) that are loaded by one second-order factor, using
item parcels; (2) The same model but with all items loaded separately; (3) A first-order model with five correlated
factors (see above), with all items loaded separately. An excellent fit was found for the first model in both
samples (clinical sample: CFI 5.99, SRMR 5.05; nonclinical sample: CFI 5.98, SRMR 5.06). Both other models
turned out to have a much lower fit to the data. Model 2 (clinical sample: CFI 5.88, SRMR 5.13; nonclinical
sample: CFI 5.89, SRMR 5.14). Model 3 (clinical sample: CFI 5.88, SRMR 5.13; nonclinical sample: CFI 5.90,
SRMR5.11).
Haviland et al. (2001, 2002) ,Berthoz et al. (2005, 2007) ,Yao et al., (2005) ,Lumley et al. (2005) , and Dorard et al.
(2008) reported correlations between the OAS subscales, as follows: Between Distant and Uninsightful, range .16
to .54, (mean .31), Distant/Humorless, range .38 to .65 (mean .54), Distant/Rigid, range .28 to .46 (mean .37),
Uninsightful/Somatizing, range .32 to .55 (mean .42), Uninsightful/Humorless, range .23 to .41 (mean .33),
Uninsightful/Rigid, range .26 to .57 (mean .44), Somatizing/Rigid, range .20 to .46 (mean .34), and Humorless/
Rigid, range .34 to .55 (mean .43).
Criterion/Predictive
Haviland et al. (2001) compared a clinical sample with a non-clinical sample, and presented effect sizes (d/SD
of nonclinical group) for the differences between the two groups. These effect sizes were large (OAS 1.3,236 9. MEASURES OF ALEXITHYMIA
III. EMOTION REGULATION