Department of Psychoanalysis and Clinical Consulting, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
J Pers Assess. 2010 Mar;92(2):175-85. doi: 10.1080/00223890903510449.
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.
在这项研究中，我们评估了荷兰版观察者述情障碍量表（OAS；Haviland、Warren 和 Riggs，2000）的可靠性和有效性，同时解决了早期研究的不足。我们发现该量表的内部一致性和重测信度是足够的，而评分者间信度不足。原始的五因素模型（疏远、缺乏洞察力、躯体化、缺乏幽默感、僵化）与项目组合显示出极好的拟合度，表明翻译质量良好。为了克服项目组合方法的问题，我们测试了替代模型，但所有模型的拟合度都很差。OAS 总分与 20 项多伦多述情障碍量表（Bagby、Parker 和 Taylor，1994；Bagby、Taylor 和 Parker，1994）相关系数为.23，与多伦多述情障碍量表结构化访谈（Bagby、Taylor、Parker 和 Dickens，2006）相关系数为.50。这些有效性方面的问题结果降低了 OAS 作为述情障碍测量工具的使用价值。
