The Development of the Toronto Structured Interview for Alexithymia: Item Selection, Factor Structure, Reliability and Concurrent Validity

  title={The Development of the Toronto Structured Interview for Alexithymia: Item Selection, Factor Structure, Reliability and Concurrent Validity},
  author={R. Michael Bagby and Graeme J. Taylor and James D. A. Parker and Susan E. Dickens},
  journal={Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics},
  pages={25 - 39}
Background: Assessments of personality constructs increasingly use self-report and structured interview instruments, which allow for a multimethod measurement approach and decrease specific measurement method bias. The aim of this study was to develop a valid and reliable structured interview for assessing the alexithymia construct. Methods: Sixty interview questions were written initially, each with a set of scoring criteria and prompts and probes to elicit information assisting in the scoring… 

Tables from this paper

The Dutch Language Version of the Toronto Structured Interview for Alexithymia: Reliability, Factor Structure and Concurrent Validity

While further studies are needed to assess the convergent and discriminant validity of the TSIA, the results support its use as a measure of alexithymia.

Taxometric Analysis of the Toronto Structured Interview for Alexithymia: Further Evidence That Alexithymia Is a Dimensional Construct

Three nonredundant taxometric procedures were performed on the Toronto Structured Interview for Alexithymia subscale scores from a multinational sample of 842 adults, providing further evidence that the core alexithymic features are continuously distributed in the population.

The German version of the Toronto Structured Interview for Alexithymia: factor structure, reliability, and concurrent validity in a psychiatric patient sample.

Assessing Alexithymia: Psychometric Properties and Factorial Invariance of the 20-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale in Nonclinical and Psychiatric Samples

The 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) is a self-report questionnaire designed to measure the three components of alexithymia; difficulty identifying feelings in the self (DIF), difficulty

Observer-Rated Alexithymia and its Relationship with the Five-Factor-Model of Personality

The findings show that on the basis of interviews there is no evidence for a relation of DIF with neuroticism, while associations of alexithymia with low openness to experience and low agreeableness emerged irrespective of assessment approach.

Assessment of Alexithymia: Psychometric Properties of the Psychological Treatment Inventory-Alexithymia Scale (PTI-AS)

*rd , 2011; revised December 6 th , 2011; accepted January 15 th , 2012 Background: The aim of this study is to investigate the psychometric properties of a new measure of alexithymia, the



Toward the development of a new self-report alexithymia scale.

Preliminary results suggest that the Toronto Alexithymia Scale may be used as a clinical screening device with psychiatric and general medical patient populations and demonstrated adequate split-half and test-retest reliability.

Convergent and discriminative validity of interview and questionnaire measures of personality disorder in mentally disordered offenders: a multitrait-multimethod analysis using confirmatory factor analysis.

Measures of personality disorder from the International Personality Disorder Examination, Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire, and Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-II) were obtained from

Factorial validity of the 20‐item Toronto Alexithymia Scale

The 20‐item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS‐20) was developed in previous research to measure a general dimension of alexithymia with three inter correlated factors. These three factors reflect

The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale--I. Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure.

Problems and considerations in the valid assessment of personality disorders.

  • J. C. Perry
  • Psychology
    The American journal of psychiatry
  • 1992
It is concluded that current methods for making personality disorder diagnoses have high reliability but yield diagnoses that are not significantly comparable across methods beyond chance, which is not scientifically acceptable.