Observation Alexithymia Scale (OAS)
(Haviland et al., 2000 )
Variable
The OAS was developed in order to get a relative brief observational measure of alexithymia stated in ordi-
nary language so it could be used both by professionals as well as laypersons.
Description
Haviland et al. (2000) started by rewriting the 26 Q-statements of the CAQ-AP and added some new ones.
This was considered necessary in order to: (1) eliminate passive voice, double negatives, and ambiguity;
(2) maintain reading ease; (3) preserve balance between indicative and contra-indicative items; and (4) maintain
good conceptual coverage of the alexithymia construct. In a study among 203 students at a health science univer-
sity, rating other people whom they know well, 33 items out of the original 44-item set, were selected for the
OAS. Each item has to be rated on a 4-point response scale. The OAS comprises five subscales labeled: Distant,
Uninsightful, Somatizing, Humorless, and Rigid.
Although the procedure as followed by the authors is straightforward, many of the OAS items (see section
sample items) seem far removed from the original description of the alexithymic individual as described by
Nemiah and Sifneos (1970a) , and Sifneos (1973) . Nevertheless, given the method used, there are good reasons to
assume that these OAS items are still related to alexithymia. Fifteen items are negatively keyed; however these
contra-indicative items are quite unequally spread over the subscales.
Sample
The Haviland et al. (2000) item selection study was based on an initial sample of 203 undergraduates (73%
women; 27% men) whom were asked to rate other people whom they knew very well: parents, spouses, girl-
friends/boyfriends, adult children, or siblings. Of the targets, 42% were women, mean age 32 years (range 17 to
90). The sample used for the EFA consisted of 467 undergraduates (61% female; 39% male), rating the same type
of persons as mentioned above. Of the targets, 46% were women, mean age 26 years (range 18 to 78). The sample
used for the CFA consisted of 352 graduate students (79% women; 21% men), rating similar persons as men-
tioned above. Of the targets 54% women, mean age 28 years (range 18 to 78). The sample in the Haviland,
Warren, Riggs, and Gallacher (2001) study consisted of 20 clinical psychologists who rated a patient (not suffer-
ing from dementia, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia, nor diagnosed with an Axis II disorder) whom they knew
very well.
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Haviland et al. (2000) reported Cronbach alpha coefficients of .88 and .89, while those for the subscales varied
between .72 and .86 (comparable results were reported by Haviland et al., 2001, 2002 ;Yao, Yi, Zhu, & Haviland
2005 ;Berthoz, Haviland, Riggs, Perdereau, & Bungerner 2005 ;Mueller, Alpers, & Reim 2006 ;Dorard et al., 2008 ;
Thorberg et al., 2010 ;Meganck, Vanheule, Desmet, & Inslegers 2010, 2011 ;Foran, O’Leary, & Williams 2012 , and
Coolidge, Estey, Segal, & Marle 2013 ). However, Dorard et al., 2008, Meganck, et al., 2010, 2011 and Coolidge et
al., 2013 reported the following somewhat lower alpha coefficients (.54, .52, .43, & .61) for the subscale Rigid.
Test/C0Retest
Haviland et al. (2000) reported a stability coefficient for the OAS of .87 over a 2 /C03 week interval, with
test/C0retest correlations for the subscales ranging from .61 (Somatizing) to .87 (Humorless). Comparable results
were reported by Haviland et al. (2001) ,Yao et al. (2005) , and Meganck et al. (2010) .Thorberg et al. (2010) using a
test/C0retest interval of three months, reported somewhat lower stability coefficients; especially for the OAS (.65),
and the subscale Uninsightful (.48).
Inter-Rater
Inter-rater reliabilities were reported by: Yao et al. (2005) ,Mueller et al. (2006) ,Berthoz, Perdereau, Godart,
Corcos, and Haviland (2007) ,Dorard et al. (2008) , and Meganck et al. (2010) . The coefficients for the OAS varied
between .80 and .71, whereas those for the OAS subscales ranged from .32 to .89. Especially the results for the
subscales Uninsightful (mean .56, range .32 to .78), and Rigid (mean .56, range .35 to .64) were low.235 OBSERVATION SCALES
III. EMOTION REGULATION