between .16 and .71 (mean .47). However, in the Lumley et al. (2005) study, the correlations were all #.3, (range
.00 to .19). This striking difference could be explained by the fact that different raters completed the OAS and
M-BIQ in the Lumley study. Finally, Meganck et al. (2011) reported a positive correlation (.36) between the
M-BIQ and the OAS. Bagby et al. (1994b) , and Meganck et al. (2011) both reported positive correlations between
the M-BIQ and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20, see section below on TAS-20), of .53 and .48, respectively.
Bagby et al. also reported positive correlations with the TAS-20-subscales as follows: DIF (.36), DDF (.57), and
EOT (.30). Taylor et al. (2000) cited a Spanish study (Martı ´nez-Sa ´nchez et al., 1998) reporting significant correla-
tions between the M-BIQ and its subscales with the TAS-20 (.47 to .51). In addition, Lumley et al. (2005) reported
the following correlations: TAS-20/M-BIQ (.26), TAS-20/M-BIQ-subscale AA (.33), TAS-20/M-BIQ-subscale OT
(.12). Fukunishi et al. (1997) reported sensitivity and selectivity of the M-BIQ to the TAS-20 of 84.2% and 89.1% in
a psychiatric sample and 77.1% and 82.5% in a student sample. Also, Meganck et al. (2011) reported a positive
correlation of .76 between the M-BIQ and Toronto Structured Interview for Alexithymia (TSIA, see section below
on TSIA), and .59 with ‘alexithymia’ (see Footnote 1).
Divergent/Discriminant
Scores on the M-BIQ and its two subscales were found to be unrelated to general intelligence and vocabulary
scores, as measured by the Shipley Institute Living Scale. However, the M-BIQ subscale AA correlated ( /C0.32)
with the abstract thinking scores of the CCEI ( Taylor et al., 2000 ).
Construct/Factor Analytic
Fukunishi et al. (1997) performed a principal components analysis with varimax rotation using a small sample
of 149 psychiatric outpatients. They found that the M-BIQ mean component loading on subscale AA was .58, and
on OT was .55. Total explained variance was: M-BIQ (40.9%), AA (23.7%), and OT (17.2%). The authors reported
comparable results for a sample of 501 college students. The two M-BIQ subscales were found to correlate .41
(Fukunishi et al., 1997 ) and .63 ( Haviland et al., 2002 ), respectively.
Criterion/Predictive
Fukunishi et al. (1997) reported correlations of the M-BIQ with the MMPI-2 subscales, ( N5149). Of the 29 cor-
relations 17 were greater than .30, and in the expected direction. The authors further reported comparable results
for an undergraduate sample ( N5473). Lumley et al. (2005) reported a negative correlation ( /C0.29) with the
Emotional Approach Coping Scale and ( /C0.32) with the Trait Meta Mood Scale.
Location
Taylor, G., Bagby, R.M. & Parker J.D. (1997). Disorders of affect regulation: Alexithymia in medical and psychiatric
illness . Cambridge University Press.
Results and Comments
All items have sufficient face validity. There is evidence of acceptable reliability, and discriminant and conver-
gent validity. However published subscales correlations (.41 & .63) suggest significant measurement overlap.
M-BIQ Sample Items
The patient mostly described details concerning symptoms rather than feelings.
The patient expressed affect more in physical terms than in thoughts.
The patient had a rich affective vocabulary.
The patient indicated that he/she did not daydream very much.
California Q-set Alexithymia Prototype (CAQ-AP)
(Haviland & Reise, 1996a ).
Variable
The CAQ-AP was developed in order to provide an observational measure of alexithymia based on the
California Q-set., to be used by professionals. The California Q-set consists of 100 statements, meant to describe
persons in standardized language ( Block, 1961 ).233 OBSERVATION SCALES
III. EMOTION REGULATION