Advanced search
1 file | 151.74 KB

The observer Alexithymia scale: a reliable and valid alternative for alexithymia measurement?

Reitske Meganck (UGent) , Stijn Vanheule (UGent) , Mattias Desmet (UGent) and Ruth Inslegers (UGent)
Author
Organization
Abstract
In this study, we evaluated the reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the Observer Alexithymia Scale (OAS; Haviland, Warren, Riggs, 2000) while addressing shortcomings of earlier research. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were found to be adequate, whereas interrater reliability was insufficient. The original five-factor model (Distant, Uninsightful, Somatizing, Humorless, Rigid) with item parcels showed excellent fit, indicating adequate translation. Alternative models were tested to overcome problems with the parcel method, and all showed poor fit. OAS total scores correlated .23 with the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (Bagby, Parker, Taylor, 1994; Bagby, Taylor, Parker, 1994) and .50 with the Toronto Structured Interview for Alexithymia (Bagby, Taylor, Parker, Dickens, 2006). These problematic results on validity compromise the use of the OAS as an alexithymia measure.
Keywords
ITEM SELECTION, TORONTO, PARALLEL ANALYSIS, INTERPERSONAL PROBLEMS, PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES, FIT, RELIABILITY, FACTORIAL VALIDITY, CONCURRENT VALIDITY, QUESTIONNAIRE

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 151.74 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

Chicago
Meganck, Reitske, Stijn Vanheule, Mattias Desmet, and Ruth Inslegers. 2010. “The Observer Alexithymia Scale: a Reliable and Valid Alternative for Alexithymia Measurement?” Journal of Personality Assessment 92 (2): 175–185.
APA
Meganck, R., Vanheule, S., Desmet, M., & Inslegers, R. (2010). The observer Alexithymia scale: a reliable and valid alternative for alexithymia measurement? JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 92(2), 175–185.
Vancouver
1.
Meganck R, Vanheule S, Desmet M, Inslegers R. The observer Alexithymia scale: a reliable and valid alternative for alexithymia measurement? JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT. 2010;92(2):175–85.
MLA
Meganck, Reitske, Stijn Vanheule, Mattias Desmet, et al. “The Observer Alexithymia Scale: a Reliable and Valid Alternative for Alexithymia Measurement?” JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT 92.2 (2010): 175–185. Print.
@article{949155,
  abstract     = {In this study, we evaluated the reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the Observer Alexithymia Scale (OAS; Haviland, Warren, Riggs, 2000) while addressing shortcomings of earlier research. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were found to be adequate, whereas interrater reliability was insufficient. The original five-factor model (Distant, Uninsightful, Somatizing, Humorless, Rigid) with item parcels showed excellent fit, indicating adequate translation. Alternative models were tested to overcome problems with the parcel method, and all showed poor fit. OAS total scores correlated .23 with the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (Bagby, Parker, Taylor, 1994; Bagby, Taylor, Parker, 1994) and .50 with the Toronto Structured Interview for Alexithymia (Bagby, Taylor, Parker, Dickens, 2006). These problematic results on validity compromise the use of the OAS as an alexithymia measure.},
  articleno    = {PII 919199146},
  author       = {Meganck, Reitske and Vanheule, Stijn and Desmet, Mattias and Inslegers, Ruth},
  issn         = {0022-3891},
  journal      = {JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT},
  keyword      = {ITEM SELECTION,TORONTO,PARALLEL ANALYSIS,INTERPERSONAL PROBLEMS,PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES,FIT,RELIABILITY,FACTORIAL VALIDITY,CONCURRENT VALIDITY,QUESTIONNAIRE},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {2},
  pages        = {PII 919199146:175--PII 919199146:185},
  title        = {The observer Alexithymia scale: a reliable and valid alternative for alexithymia measurement?},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223890903510449},
  volume       = {92},
  year         = {2010},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: