POO65432

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/330522769
Toronto Alexithymia Scale–20: Examining 18 Competing Factor Structure

Solutions in a U.S. Sample and a Philippines Sample
Article in Assessment · January 2019

DOI: 10.1177/1073191118824030
CITATIONS READS
11 301
4 authors, including:
Antover Tuliao Bernice Vania Landoy Mamauag

Texas Tech University University of the Philippines Visayas
56 PUBLICATIONS 281 CITATIONS 20 PUBLICATIONS 57 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Psychological First Aid by the MHPSS Group of PAP View project
Medication Assisted Treatments (MAT) in Alcohol & Drug Treatment Facilities View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Antover Tuliao on 30 January 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Assessment
Toronto Alexithymia Scale – 20: Examining 18 Competing

Factor Structure Solutions in a U.S. and the Philippines
Sample
Journal: Assessment
Manuscript ID ASMNT-18-0219.R2
Fo
Manuscript Type: Original Manuscript
Toronto Alexithymia Scale 20, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Bifactor

Keywords:
Model, Multiple Group Analysis, Philippines, College Students
rP
ee
rR
ev
iew
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/asmnt
Page 1 of 45 Assessment
1
2
3 Running Head: TAS-20 FACTOR STRUCTURE
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Toronto Alexithymia Scale – 20: Examining 18 Competing Factor Structure Solutions in a
18
19
U.S. and the Philippines Sample
Fo
20
21
22
23
rP
24
25
26
ee
27
28
29
rR
30
31
32
ev
33
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45 Word Count: 9,487 words (including Title Page, Abstract, and References)
46 Manuscript Pages: 35 (including Title Page, Abstract, and References)
47 Number of Tables: 3
48 Number of Figures: 4
49 Supplemental Material included in review.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/asmnt
Assessment Page 2 of 45
2
1
2
4
5
6 U.S. and the Philippines Sample
7
8
9
10
11 Abstract
12
13
14 The Toronto Alexithymia Scale – 20 (TAS-20; Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 1994) is arguably the
15
16 most utilized measure of alexithymia. Although a three-factor solution has been found by
17
18
19
numerous studies, these findings are not universal. This paper examined and compared 18
Fo
20
21 competing factor structures for the TAS-20, which included between one to four correlated latent
22
23 factor structures, common methods models that accounts for negatively worded items, and
rP
24
25 bifactor models. Although the two-factor bifactor model with a common methods factor had the
26
ee
27
28 better model fit compared to the other 17 models examined, it still did not achieve the requisites
29
rR
30 of a good model fit across all model fit indices. Issues stemmed primarily from the externally-
31
32 oriented thinking factor and the negatively worded items. Post-hoc analyses indicated that a
ev
33
34
35 two-factor bifactor model with the negatively worded items dropped achieved the requisites of a
36
iew
37 good model fit and can be treated as a unidimensional measure despite the presence of
38
39 multidimensionality. Multiple groups analysis indicated that the factor loadings were invariant
40
41
42
across U.S. and Philippines samples. After controlling for non-invariance at the item intercept
43
44 level, the Philippines sample had a higher alexithymia general score compared to the U.S.
45
46 sample.
47
48
49 Keywords: Toronto Alexithymia Scale – 20; confirmatory factor analysis; multiple groups
50
51 analysis; Philippines; college students
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
3
1
2
4
5
6 U.S. and the Philippines Sample
7
8 The construct alexithymia was initially coined in the 1970s to characterize individuals
9
10 with difficulties identifying, processing, and describing emotions (Nemiah, Freyberger, &
11
12
13
Sifneaos, 1976). Arguably, the most utilized and most cited measure for alexithymia is the
14
15 Toronto Alexithymia Scale – 20 items (TAS-20; Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 1994; Bagby, Taylor,
16
17 & Parker, 1994), a measure that has been evaluated in numerous studies using student,
18
19
community, and patient samples, and has been translated and evaluated in numerous cultures and
Fo
20
21
22 countries (for reviews, see Kooiman, Spinhoven, & Trijsburg, 2002 and Taylor, Bagby, &
23
rP
24 Parker, 2003). The TAS-20 has a three-factor structure: Difficulty Identifying Feelings (DIF; 7
25
26 items; e.g., “I am often confused about what emotion I am feeling”), Difficulty Describing
ee
27
28
29 Feelings (DDF; 5 items; e.g., “I find it hard to describe how I feel about people”), and
rR
30
31 Externally-Oriented Thinking (EOT; 8 items; e.g., “I prefer to analyze problems rather than just
32
ev
33 describe them”). Although the DIF-DDF-EOT three-factor solution has been replicated
34
35
36
numerous times (e.g., Loas et al., 2001; Parker, Taylor, & Bagby, 2003; Preece, Becerra,
iew
37
38 Robinson, & Dandy, 2018; Taylor et al., 2003; Tsaousis et al., 2010), several studies have found
39
40 alternative structures ranging from one- to four-factor solutions, with samples coming from both
41
42
Western and non-Western countries (e.g., Cleland, Magura, Foote, Rosenblum, & Kosanke,
43
44
45 2005; Erni, Lötscher & Modestin, 1997; Haviland & Reise, 1996; Lambert et al., 1999; Zhu, Yi,
46
47 Yao, Ryder, Taylor, & Bagby, 2007). Other psychometric issues have also been pointed out,
48
49 including low model fit indices and poor reliability estimates for the EOT factor (Gignac,
50
51
52 Palmer, & Stough, 2007).
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
4
1
2
3 The current study continues the long line of research on the psychometric properties of
4
5
6 the TAS-20, particularly its factor structure and reliability. This study, however, expands the
7
8 literature by examining 18 competing latent factor structures, including a correlated latent factor
9
10 model, common methods model, and bifactor model. Furthermore, the current study examined
11
12
13
TAS-20 measurement and structural invariance between the U.S. and the Philippines, a country
14
15 in which TAS-20 psychometric properties have yet to be studied.
16
17 Competing Factor Solutions of the TAS-20
18
19
Examination of a measurement’s factor structure is essential for theoretical reasons,
Fo
20
21
22 particularly in ascertaining construct validity and accurate specifications of theory (Brown, 2014;
23
rP
24 Smith & McCarthy, 1995). Failure to ascertain the correct factor structure could lead to
25
26 inaccurate correlational and experimental findings. Accuracy in the interpretation of scores is
ee
27
28
29 essential especially when an instrument is used for clinical purposes. Factor analytic studies can
rR
30
31 help determine how an instrument should be scored. That is, depending on the results, an
32
ev
33 instrument can be aggregated or summed if evidence of unidimensionality is present. Otherwise,

34
35
36
subscale scores are used especially when multidimensionality is found. In this section,
iew
37
38 competing factor solutions for the TAS-20 are discussed.
39
40 Competing correlated latent factor models. The three-factor solution (DIF-DDF-EOT)
41
42
was initially proposed by Bagby, Parker, and Taylor (1994), and was derived using factor
43
44
45 analysis, specifically principal axis factoring. Some have used exploratory factor analysis or
46
47 principal components analysis (e.g., Kojima, Frasure-Smith, & Lespérance, 2001), but more
48
49 recent psychometric examinations of the TAS-20 have utilized confirmatory factor analysis
50
51
52 (CFA) to ascertain its factor structure (e.g., Parker et al., 2003; Tsaousis et al., 2010). Studies
53
54 using CFA typically utilize a correlated latent factor (CLF) model which suggests that items
55
56
57
58
59
5
1
2
3 uniquely load onto latent factors, which in turn are correlated with each other. Although a large
4
5
6 number of studies from different countries and cultures utilizing student, adult, and inpatient
7
8 populations have indicated the adequacy of the three-factor DIF-DDF-EOT solution (e.g., see
9
10 Kooiman et al., 2002, and Parker et al., 2003 for reviews), this finding is not universal. Lambert
11
12
13
and colleagues (1999) proposed a one-factor solution. Others suggested a two-factor solution
14
15 wherein the DIF and the DDF were aggregated, leaving a DI/DDF and EOT factor structure
16
17 (e.g., Cleland et al., 2005; Erni et al., 1997). An alternative three-factor solution was proposed
18
19
by Haviland and Reise (1996) with a DI/DDF latent factor and splitting the EOT factor into
Fo
20
21
22 pragmatic thinking (PT) and lack of importance of emotions (IM; hereinafter referred to as
23
rP
24 DI/DDF-PT-IM model). Finally, Müller, Bühner, and Ellgring (2003) proposed a four-factor
25
26 DIF-DDF-PT-IM solution to the TAS-20. Gignac and colleagues (2007) have also questioned
ee
27
28
29 prior research that validates the TAS-20 DIF-DDF-EOT factor structure. Specifically, Gignac et
rR
30
31 al. (2007) pointed out that only three out of 27 studies mentioned in a review paper (Taylor et al.,
32
ev
33 2003) achieved a goodness-of-fit index (GFI) > .94 (for a rebuttal, see Bagby, Taylor, Quilty, &
34
35
36
Parker, 2007).
iew
37
38 Common methods model. Another issue with the TAS-20 DIF-DDF-EOT factor
39
40 structure is the poor reliability estimates for EOT consistently found among multiple studies.
41
42
For instance, in reviewing the TAS-20 psychometric properties across 22 countries (Taylor et al.,
43
44
45 2003), the average Cronbach’s α of EOT is .57 (range .27 to .83). Some have hypothesized that
46
47 the poor reliability could be because four out of five negatively worded items in the TAS-20 are
48
49 in EOT (Gignac et al., 2007; Kojima et al., 2001; Preece et al., 2018). Within a CFA framework,
50
51
52 this common methods bias issue (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012) can be empirically
53
54 examined and alleviated by adding an orthogonal latent factor that accounts for the negatively
55
56
57
58
59
6
1
2
3 worded items. The orthogonal latent methods factor accounts for the variance shared by the
4
5
6 items sharing a common method (in this case negatively worded items) but are presumed not to
7
8 be associated with the latent factors accounting for the traits. Studies that examined methods
9
10 bias of negatively keyed items of TAS-20 suggest model improvement over a model without a
11
12
13
common methods factor (Gignac et al., 2007; Mattila et al., 2010; Moriguchi et al., 2007; Preece
14
15 et al., 2018; Watters, Taylor, Ayearst, & Bagby, 2016).
16
17 Bifactor model solution to the TAS-20. A common practice with TAS-20 is to use the
18
19
summed score, either treating the variable as a continuum or utilizing a categorical approach
Fo
20
21
22 where scores ≥ 61 indicate alexithymia (e.g., Dehgani, Dehgani, Kafaie, & Taghizadeh, 2017;
23
rP
24 Parker, Taylor, & Bagby, 1998). However, summing scores and treating the TAS-20 as a
25
26 unidimensional measure disregards the multidimensionality consistently found in psychometric
ee
27
28
29 studies. There is, therefore, a tension regarding whether to conceptualize and apply TAS-20 as a
rR
30
31 unidimensional or a multidimensional measure. One source for this tension stems from
32
ev
33 psychometric studies that utilize a CLF perspective in which a one-factor solution is pitted
34
35
36
against a multi-factor solution, and studies have consistently shown the superiority of a
iew
37
38 multidimensional solution (e.g., Müller et al., 2003; Zhu et al., 2007).
39
40 One way to reconcile the unidimensionality versus multidimensionality argument is
41
42
through a bifactor model rather than using a CLF. A bifactor structural model presumes that
43
44
45 relationships among the items can be accounted for by a single general factor (in this case,
46
47 alexithymia) and group factors account for additional variance common among the items,
48
49 typically due to similarity in content (Reise, 2012). Using a bifactor model also has the
50
51
52 advantage of evaluating whether the TAS-20 can be treated as a unidimensional construct, or
53
54 whether the multidimensionality is so severe as to preclude the use of summed scores. To our
55
56
57
58
59
7
1
2
3 knowledge, only two studies have examined a bifactor solution to TAS-20 (Gignac et al., 2007;
4
5
6 Reise, Bonifay, & Haviland, 2013), and both have shown improvements in model fit in the
7
8 bifactor model compared to the CLF model. Further, support for a bifactor solution was found
9
10 for a similar alexithymia instrument, the Toronto Structured Interview for Alexithymia (TSIA;
11
12
13
Watters, Taylor, & Bagby, 2016), which lends credence to a unidimensional conceptualization of
14
15 alexithymia.
16
17 Cross-Country Differences in TAS-20 Factor Structures
18
19
Although the DIF-DDF-EOT factor structure has been replicated in various countries
Fo
20
21
22 (Taylor et al., 2003), there are exemptions to this finding. For instance, in the Chinese
23
rP
24 translation of the TAS-20, a four-factor structure showed better fit compared to a three-factor
25
26 model in an undergraduate sample, and Chinese student samples had significantly higher TAS-
ee
27
28
29 20 scores compared to a Canadian student sample (Zhu et al., 2007). In a Dutch student and
rR
30
31 patient sample, a two-factor solution was a better solution compared to the DIF-DDF-EOT
32
ev
33 (Kooiman et al., 2002). Given these discrepancies in the literature, there is a need to further
34
35
36
examine the TAS-20 factor structure in various countries and cultures, particularly in non-
iew
37
38 Western countries, to avoid construct bias (Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). Construct bias
39
40 occurs when the construct purportedly being measured is not identical, is not present, or is not
41
42
defined similarly in another culture (Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). At a theoretical level, it is
43
44
45 essential to assure that the alexithymia construct and its subfactors do exist and are defined and
46
47 structured similarly in other cultures to establish cross-cultural generalizability and
48
49 comparability.
50
51
52 Related to the construct bias issue, there is an extensive literature suggesting that culture
53
54 has an impact on how emotions are appraised, how intense they are experienced, and how people
55
56
57
58
59
8
1
2
3 react to and regulate emotions (e.g., Kitayama, Markus, & Matsumoto, 1995, Matsumoto et al.,
4
5
6 2008; Schimmack, Oishi, & Diener, 2002). For instance, Western or individualistic cultures find
7
8 it more normative to express emotions compared to Eastern or collectivist cultures (Matsumoto
9
10 et al., 2008). Furthermore, Asian cultures, compared to non-Asian cultures, do not perceive
11
12
13
emotions of opposite valence (e.g., happy and sad) as necessarily opposite, but rather compatible
14
15 with each other (Schimmack et al., 2002). The West/individualist versus East/collectivist
16
17 difference in emotional expression and regulation further highlights the need to examine
18
19
alexithymia’s factor structure and scores cross-culturally. In this paper, we examined two
Fo
20
21
22 cultures that embody the West/individualist and East/collectivist difference: The U.S. and the
23
rP
24 Philippines.
25
26 An East-West country difference in TAS-20 scores has been documented. For instance,
ee
27
28
29 using the statistics reported by Taylor and colleagues (2003), Japanese students (M = 53.20, SD=
rR
30
31 12.10, n = 473) had significantly higher alexithymia scores compared to a Dutch student sample
32
ev
33 (M = 43.93, SD = 9.12, n = 414; t = 12.74, df = 885, p < .01). In an aggregated Arab-speaking

34
35
36
sample from Algeria, Gaza, and Oman, alexithymia total scores and DIF, DDF, and EOT scores
iew
37
38 were significantly higher compared to a Canadian sample (El Abiddine, Dave, Aldhafri, El-
39
40 Astal, Hemaid, & Parker, 2017). One limitation of simple sample comparisons using ANOVA-
41
42
based procedures is that it is unclear whether the sample differences are due to real differences at
43
44
45 the latent factor level (or “true score”) or due to bias or systemic variability at the item level (i.e.,
46
47 item differences at equivalent levels of the latent factor score or “true score”; Brown, 2014).
48
49 One way to alleviate this concern is through the use of multiple groups analysis (MG-CFA;
50
51
52 Chen, 2008; Meredith, 1993; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000), a procedure that can parse out
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
9
1
2
3 whether group differences lie in the latent factor (structural model) or at the item factor loading
4
5
6 or intercept level (measurement model; Brown, 2014).
7
8 Study Overview and Proposed Model Comparisons
9
10 Although the three-factor DIF-DDF-EOT (Bagby et al., 1994) has received the most
11
12
13
support, other studies have presented alternative factor structures. This paper aims to help clarify
14
15 the inconsistent findings regarding the factor structure of the TAS-20. Previous research has
16
17 suggested five competing models: a) a one-factor model (ALEX model, see Figure 1a), b) a two-
18
19
factor model (DI/DDF-EOT model, see Figure 1b), c) a three-factor model proposed by Bagby et
Fo
20
21
22 al. (1994; DIF-DDF-EOT model, see Figure 1c), d) a three-factor model proposed by Haviland
23
rP
24 and Reise (1996; DI/DDF-PT-IM model, see Figure 1d), and a four-factor model (Müller et al.,
25
26 2003; DIF-DDF-PT-IM model, see Figure 1e). These models assume that each item uniquely
ee
27
28
29 loads to a specific latent factor, and all latent factors are correlated with each other. These
rR
30
31 models are referred to as correlated latent factor (CLF) models.
32
ev
33 Some studies have also raised the issue posed by negatively worded items, which, as
34
35
36
suggested, could affect the model fit indices. One way to address this issue from a CFA
iew
37
38 framework is to add an orthogonal latent factor that specifically accounts for negatively worded
39
40 items. Figure 2 presents a common method factor added to the DIF-DDF-EOT model. The
41
42
current study examined the viability of adding a common method factor to all five models (i.e.,
43
44
45 ALEX, DI/DDF-EOT, DIF-DDF-EOT, DI/DDF-PT-IM, DIF-DDF-PT-IM), referred to as
46
47 common methods (CM) models. For example, the three-factor Bagby et al. (1994) model with
48
49 an orthogonal common method latent factor is referred to as DIF-DDF-EOT+CM model (see
50
51
52 Figure 2).
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
10
1
2
3 A bifactor model (herein referred to as BF models) presumes that a general factor (e.g.,
4
5
6 alexithymia) accounts for the relationship among the items, with group or specific factors
7
8 accounting for the additional variance among the items, typically due to similarities in content.
9
10 In other words, a BF model assumes that the TAS-20 measures a general alexithymia construct,
11
12
13
and additional variance is accounted for by similarities in content (e.g., for DIF, all items pertain
14
15 to identification of emotion). Procedurally, a BF CFA would have (a) one latent factor that
16
17 accounts for the general factor (alexithymia) and all 20 items loading onto the general factor; (b)
18
19
between two to four latent factors that account for similarities in content (in this case we used the
Fo
20
21
22 DI/DDF-EOT, DIF-DDF-EOT, DI/DDF-PT-IM, and DIF-DDF-PT-IM as group factors); and (c)
23
rP
24 all latent factors are orthogonal. Figure 3 presents the structural model of the DIF-DDF-EOT
25
26 model with an added BF latent factor and is referred to as the DIF-DDF-EOT+BF model.
ee
27
28
29 It is also possible to combine a BF and a CM into one model, with a general alexithymia
rR
30
31 latent factor, a common methods latent factor to account for negatively worded items, and
32
ev
33 between two to four latent group factors to account for similarities in item content. Figure 4
34
35
36
presents the structural model of the DIF-DDF-EOT model with an added BF and CM latent
iew
37
38 factors, and is referred to as the DIF-DDF-EOT+CM+BF model.
39
40 In summary, this study first aims to examine and compare 18 competing TAS-20 factor
41
42
structure models using both nested and non-nested model comparisons. Specifically, the 18
43
44
45 models include five models that utilize CLF (i.e., ALEX, DI/DDF-EOT, DIF-DDF-EOT,
46
47 DI/DDF-PT-IM, DIF-DDF-PT-IM), five models that expand the CLF models by adding a
48
49 common methods factor (CM models), four BF models that will use the DI/DDF-EOT, DIF-
50
51
52 DDF-EOT, DI/DDF-PT-IM, DIF-DDF-PT-IM as group or specific factors, and four models that
53
54 combine BF and CM models. Given the cross-country differences found in the literature, a
55
56
57
58
59
11
1
2
3 secondary aim of the current study was to examine the TAS-20 factor structures in the U.S. and
4
5
6 the Philippines side-by-side, and compare these using MG-CFA.
7
8 Method
9
10 Participants and Procedures
11
12
13
Data for this study were from a larger study on sexual aggression perpetration and
14
15 victimization between U.S. and Philippines samples. For the U.S. sample, 1,621 undergraduate
16
17 students (74% female; age M = 19.83, SD = 2.62, range 17 to 57) were recruited from a large
18
19
public plains state university and a private plains state university. The ethnic composition of
Fo
20
21
22 U.S. participants was as follows: European American (n = 1,286, 79%), Asian Americans/Pacific
23
rP
24 Islander (n = 128, 8%), Hispanic (n = 78, 5%), African American (n = 49, 3%), Native American
25
26 (n = 12, 1%), and other/rather not report (n = 68, 4%). For the Philippines sample, 482
ee
27
28
29 undergraduate students (76% female; age M = 17.77, SD = 1.39, range 16 to 28) were recruited
rR
30
31 from a large public university from the Visayas region. Participants answered all the measures
32
ev
33 online and received course credits. All measures were in English. Prior to participant
34
35
36
recruitment, the University of Nebraska - Lincoln and Creighton University Institutional Review
iew
37
38 Boards (IRB) reviewed and approved the research protocol. IRB are not a common practice in
39
40 the Philippines, however the University of the Philippines – Visayas Office of the Vice
41
42
Chancellor for Research and Extension approved the protocol for this study. All participants
43
44
45 were presented with and signed informed consents prior to participating in the study.
46
47 Measurements
48
49 Toronto Alexithymia Scale – 20 (TAS-20). The TAS-20 (Bagby, Parker, & Taylor,
50
51
52 1994) is a self-report instrument that measures alexithymia. Participants indicated their
53
54 agreement of each item using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
55
56
57
58
59
12
1
2
3 agree). Total scores can range from 20 to 100, with scores ≥ 61 indicative of alexithymia, 51 to
4
5
6 60 as borderline, and ≤ 50 as no alexithymia. As previously noted, the TAS-20 is commonly
7
8 reported to have a 3-factor DIF-DDF-EOT solution (Taylor et al., 2003), however this finding is
9
10 not universal. Previous research reported α reliability coefficient ranges from .68 to .84 for the
11
12
13
total score, from .67 to .85 for DIF, from .48 to .82 for the DDF, and from .27 to .83 for the EOT
14
15 factor (Taylor et al., 2003). Reliability estimates for the current study are reported in the Results
16
17 section.
18
19
Data Analysis
Fo
20
21
22 CFA, nested and non-nested model comparisons. CFA on the 18 alternative models to
23
rP
24 the TAS-20 was performed using Mplus version 6 (Muthén & Muthén, 2010). For estimation
25
26 procedure, maximum likelihood with robust standard errors (MLR) was utilized to account for
ee
27
28
29 multivariate non-normality and missing data (full-information maximum likelihood). Adequacy
rR
30
31 of model fit for each model was evaluated using the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis
32
ev
33 index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean
34
35
36
square residual (SRMR). Hu and Bentler (1999) suggested the following criteria for a good
iew
37
38 model fit: CFI ≥ .95, TLI ≥ .95, RMSEA ≤ .06, and SRMR ≤ .08. Brown (2014) suggested a
39
40 lower criterion of CFI ≥ .90 and TLI ≥ .90. For this study, the following criteria was used to
41
42
assess a good model fit: CFI ≥ .90, TLI ≥ .90, RMSEA ≤ .06, and SRMR ≤ .08.
43
44
45 Nested and non-nested model comparisons were performed to compare various TAS-20
46
47 factor models. Nested model comparisons are conventionally evaluated using a Δχ2 test;
48
49 however, because of the use of MLR, a likelihood ratio test accounting for the scaling correction
50
51
52 factors was used to make nested model comparisons (–2ΔLLcorrected; Satorra, 2000). Similar to
53
54 the Δχ2 test, the –2ΔLLcorrected is evaluated using a χ2 distribution, and a p < .05 suggests that the
55
56
57
58
59
13
1
2
3 model with an additional parameter (e.g., adding a latent factor) provided a better fit to the data
4
5
6 compared to a more parsimonious one. For non-nested model comparisons, the Akaike
7
8 information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) is generally used, with
9
10 lower values indicating better model fit (Brown, 2014; Burnham & Anderson, 2004). Merkle,
11
12
13
You, and Preacher (2016) though have raised concerns regarding the use of “lower is better”
14
15 criterion and advocated for more stringent procedures such as the Vuong (1989) test for non-
16
17 nested model comparisons. Vuong (1989) test utilizes a z distribution, with p < .05 indicating a
18
19
significant difference in BICs between two models, and a smaller BIC suggesting a better model
Fo
20
21
22 fit.
23
rP
24 Bifactor model statistics. Statistics are available to evaluate the uni- or

25
26 multidimensionality of a bifactor model, and to assess how well the general factor accounts for
ee
27
28
29 the variance among the items. The alpha (α) and omega (ω) reliability estimates are reported in
rR
30
31 this study. For bifactor models, the omega reliability (ω) measures both the variance accounted
32
ev
33 for by the general alexithymia factor and the other specific factors. On the other hand, the
34
35
36
omega hierarchical (ωH) reflects the total score variance attributable to the general alexithymia
iew
37
38 factor only after accounting for all specific factors, with values greater than .75 preferred (Reise,
39
40 Scheines, Widaman, & Haviland, 2013). In other words, a high ω and a high ωH indicate that the
41
42
general factor accounts for most of the variance in the model. The omega hierarchical subscale
43
44
45 (ωHS) reflects the subscale score variance after accounting for the general factor. Low ωHS (i.e.,
46
47 less than .50; Reise et al., 2013) suggests that majority of the subscale score variance is due to
48
49 the general factor, with the leftover variances accounted for by the specific factors (e.g.,
50
51
52 similarities in the items not otherwise accounted for by the general factor).
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
14
1
2
3 The explained common variance of the general factor (ECVGen) is an index of
4
5
6 unidimensionality, which could be interpreted as the relative strength of the general factor versus
7
8 specific factors (Reise, Moore, & Haviland, 2010). An ECVGen ≥ .85 indicates little common
9
10 variance after accounting for the general factor, enough to consider the measure as
11
12
13
unidimensional (Reise et al., 2010). To further assess for unidimensionality, the ECVGen and the
14
15 ωH are interpreted with the percent of uncontaminated correlations (PUC), which is the number
16
17 of uncontaminated correlations divided by the number of unique correlations (see Rodriguez,
18
19
Reise, & Haviland, 2016, for PUC equation). According to Reise, Scheines, and colleagues
Fo
20
21
22 (2013), when PUC < .80, an instrument with ECVGen > .60 and ωH > .70 could be treated as
23
rP
24 unidimensional despite the presence of common or specific factors, or, for purposes of this
25
26 paper, “unidimensional enough” (Reise et al., 2013).
ee
27
28
29 Multiple groups CFA (MG-CFA). Another aim for this paper was to compare TAS-20
rR
30
31 factor structures between U.S. and Philippines samples. To achieve this goal, CFA was
32
ev
33 performed for both samples independently. Once a factor structure solution with the better
34
35
36
model fit was decided upon, a MG-CFA (Chen, 2008; Meredith, 1993; Vandenberg & Lance,
iew
37
38 2000) was subsequently performed to evaluate the measurement and structural invariance of the
39
40 factor structure between samples.
41
42
MG-CFA measurement invariance starts with estimating the configural model, i.e., a
43
44
45 model wherein all parameters are allowed to vary across the U.S. and Philippines samples. A
46
47 configural model is needed to assure that similar factors are measured in each group, and to
48
49 establish a baseline for which more restrictive models can be compared. All subsequent models
50
51
52 are examined with more restrictions. A metric invariance model is subsequently calculated by
53
54 constraining unstandardized factor loadings to be equal between samples. A significant –
55
56
57
58
59
15
1
2
3 2ΔLLcorrected test performed between the configural model and metric invariance model indicates
4
5
6 possible non-equivalence at the factor loading level, and sources of model misfit are examined
7
8 using the MODINDICES. Cheung and Rensvold (2002) also suggests that a ΔCFI > .01
9
10 suggests that the assumption of non-invariance should be rejected. Metric invariance assures that
11
12
13
the strength of the items-factor relationship is similar across samples.
14
15 Item intercepts are subsequently constrained to be equal across samples (scalar invariance
16
17 model), and model fit is compared against the metric invariance model using procedures
18
19
previously discussed. The scalar invariance test examines whether item means are
Fo
20
21
22 proportionally equal across groups. The residual variance invariance model (for residual
23
rP
24 variance) and residual covariance invariance model (for residual covariance) are then evaluated
25
26 following the procedures previously outlined.
ee
27
28
29 After evaluating the measurement invariance model, the structural model invariance
rR
30
31 models are subsequently examined. Structural invariance tests whether the factor means and the
32
ev
33 relationship between latent factors are equal across samples. The latent factor variance
34
35
36
invariance was first examined, followed by latent factor covariance, and finally the latent factor
iew
37
38 means. Structural invariance tests were evaluated using the –2ΔLLcorrected and ΔCFI test.
39
40 Results
41
42
Examination of the Model Fit Indices
43
44
45 In efforts to evaluate and compare various TAS-20 factor structures, none of the models
46
47 examined achieved the minimum criteria for the TLI (i.e., > .90; see Table 1 for model fit
48
49 indices). Excluding TLI, only seven models achieved the minimum requisites for the CFI,
50
51
52 RMSEA, and SRMR among all the models examined. For the U.S. sample, these include the
53
54 DI/DDF-EOT+CM+BF, DIF-DDF-EOT+CM+BF, DI/DDF-PT-IM+CM+BF, and the DIF-DDF-
55
56
57
58
59
16
1
2
3 PT-IM+CM+BF models. However, the DI/DDF-PT-IM+CM+BF and the DIF-DDF-PT-
4
5
6 IM+CM+BF models resulted in a negative residual variance at item 15; hence these models were
7
8 not considered viable. For the Philippines sample, the DIF-DDF-PT-IM+CM, DI/DDF-
9
10 EOT+CM+BF, and the DIF-DDF-EOT+CM+BF models achieved minimum criteria of good
11
12
13
model fit for the CFI, RMSEA, and the SRMR. However, the DIF-DDF-PT-IM+CM model
14
15 resulted in latent factor correlations greater than 1 in IM and PT; hence, these were not
16
17 considered viable models.
18
19
We subjected the viable models (i.e., DI/DDF-EOT+CM+BF, DIF-DDF-EOT+CM+BF)
Fo
20
21
22 to model comparisons to ascertain which is a better model. Because all viable factor structure
23
rP
24 models are non-nested, a Vuong z test was utilized to make model comparisons. For the U.S.
25
26 sample, although the BIC for the DIF-DDF-EOT+CM+BF model was smaller than DI/DDF-
ee
27
28
29 EOT+CM+BF, the difference was not significant (Vuong z = 0.379, p = .65). For the Philippines
rR
30
31 sample, the DI/DDF-EOT+CM+BF model BIC was smaller than the DIF-DDF-EOT+CM+BF;
32
ev
33 however, the difference was not significant (Vuong z = –0.578, p = .28). Given that the
34
35
36
DI/DDF-EOT+CM+BF and the DIF-DDF-EOT+CM+BF for both samples were equivalent, we
iew
37
38 opted for a more parsimonious DI/DDF-EOT+CM+BF model. In the other CLF and CM
39
40 analyses conducted in this study, latent factor correlations between the DDF and DIF were high
41
42
for the correlated factor model (U.S. r = .835, p < .01; Philippines r = .935, p < .01) and the
43
44
45 common factor model (U.S. r = .827, p < .01; Philippines r = .936, p < .01), further supporting
46
47 the idea that the DDF and DIF might be measuring similar constructs. A more comprehensive
48
49 nested and non-nested pairwise model fit comparison is available in the Supplemental Material
50
51
52 (Table S1 and S2).
53
54 Examining Factor Loadings, Reliability, and Unidimensionality
55
56
57
58
59
17
1
2
3 Standardized factor loadings for other models examined are available in the
4
5
6 Supplementary Material (Table S3 to Table S10), but due to page limitations, are not reported
7
8 here. Table 2 presents the standardized factor loadings for the DI/DDF-EOT+CM+BF model,
9
10 the model that best fit among the 18 models, for the U.S. and Philippines samples. Several
11
12
13
observations need to be highlighted. For the U.S. sample, negatively worded items (items 5, 10,
14
15 18, and 19) in the EOT factor either did not significantly load or had poor loadings (i.e., < .30) in
16
17 the EOT latent factor and the general alexithymia factor. For the Philippines sample, negatively
18
19
worded items significantly loaded on the EOT latent factor, although did not load on the general
Fo
20
21
22 alexithymia general factor or the common methods latent factor. This could indicate that the
23
rP
24 EOT latent factor is accounting for the negatively worded nature of the items rather than tapping
25
26 externally-oriented thinking. An examination of reliability estimates α and ω indicate good
ee
27
28
29 reliability for the total alexithymia scale and the DI/DDF subscale, but not for the EOT subscale.
rR
30
31 Poor reliability estimates for EOT were also observed for other latent factor solutions (see also
32
ev
33 Supplemental Material Table S2 and Table S3 for reliability estimates for other factor solutions).
34
35
36
Reliability and bifactor indices such as α, ω, ωH, ωHS, and ECV are available in Table 2.
iew
37
38 For the DI/DDF-EOT+CM+BF model, the general alexithymia factor accounts for 35%
39
40 (Philippines sample) to 57% (U.S. sample) of the common variance, whereas 65% to 43% of the
41
42
common variance is accounted for by the other group factors (see Table 2, ECV estimates under
43
44
45 the BF column). To further assess for unidimensionality, the ECVGen and the ωH is interpreted
46
47 with the PUC. As stated above, an instrument with PUC < .80, ECVGen > .60 and ωH > .70
48
49 could be treated as unidimensional despite the presence of common or specific factors. As Table
50
51
52 2 indicates, the assumption of unidimensionality has not been attained for both the U.S. and
53
54 Philippines samples.
55
56
57
58
59
18
1
2
3 Overall, the results here suggest that, although a bifactor with common methods factor
4
5
6 has the better model fit compared to the other 17 models examined, unidimensionality cannot be
7
8 assumed. Results question the practice of using the sum of scores for TAS-20 and treating it as a
9
10 unidimensional measure. Results also suggest that negatively worded items loaded poorly, and
11
12
13
when comparing the U.S. and Philippines samples, inconsistently. The reliability of EOT, the
14
15 latent factor where the majority of the negatively worded items loaded, was consistently shown
16
17 to be poor. These observations are consistent with other studies that examined the psychometric
18
19
properties of the TAS-20 (Gignac et al., 2007). Given the issues presented by negatively worded
Fo
20
21
22 items, we subsequently examined a bifactor solution with these negatively worded items dropped
23
rP
24 from the model. A bifactor solution was examined given our results indicating the superiority of
25
26 a bifactor solution compared to other factor solutions, as well as those suggested by Gignac et al.
ee
27
28
29 (2007) and Reise et al. (2013).
rR
30
31 Post-hoc Analyses: Dropping Negatively Worded Items
32
ev
33 For the U.S. sample, results indicated that the model fit indices of the bifactor model with
34
35
36
negatively worded items dropped achieved the requisites of a good model fit except for RMSEA
iew
37
38 (CFI = .932, TLI = .905, RMSEA = .063, SRMR = .038). Modification index indicated that
39
40 adding residual covariance between items 3 and 7 would significantly improve model fit. As
41
42
both items pertain to physical or bodily sensations, there is a conceptual rationale to add this
43
44
45 parameter. A TAS-20 bifactor model with residual covariance between items 3 and 7 achieved
46
47 the requisites of a good model fit for the U.S. and Philippines sample (See Table 1). Table 3
48
49 presents the standardized factor loadings for this model.
50
51
52 To review, a bifactor model with PUC < .80, ECVGen > .60 and ωH > .70 is enough to
53
54 warrant a unidimensional interpretation despite the presence of multidimensionality stemming
55
56
57
58
59
19
1
2
3 from specific factors. As presented in Table 3, these prerequisites have been achieved for the
4
5
6 U.S. and Philippines samples. For the U.S. sample, with ω = .888 and ωH = .841, the majority of
7
8 the reliable variance (Percentage of Reliable Variance (PRV) = .841 / .888 = 95%; Rodriguez et
9
10 al., 2015) is attributable to the general factor. PRV for the Philippines sample is 95%. The
11
12
13
average relative parameter bias (i.e., the difference between the item’s factor loading in a
14
15 unidimensional solution and the factor loading of the general factor in the bifactor model,
16
17 divided by the general factor loading) is 6% for both the U.S. and Philippines samples, well
18
19
below the acceptable average parameter bias of 10% - 15% (Muthén, Kaplan, & Hollis, 1987).
Fo
20
21
22 Overall, results of this analysis indicate that dropping the negatively worded items and
23
rP
24 using a bifactor model on the TAS resulted in a solution with good model fit indices. In
25
26 addition, this factor structure solution can be considered “unidimensional enough” for the
ee
27
28
29 summed scores to be used and the measure to be treated as a unidimensional measure of
rR
30
31 alexithymia. Despite these results, the EOT factor still suffers from poor reliability, and items 15
32
ev
33 and 16 loaded poorly on the general alexithymia factor and load heavily on the specific factor.
34
35
36
Multiple Groups Analysis
iew
37
38 The secondardy aim for this paper was to evaluate the measurement and structural
39
40 invariance of the best-fitting factor structure model for the TAS-20 between the U.S. and
41
42
Philippines samples. Post-hoc analysis indicated that the bifactor model with the negative items
43
44
45 dropped achieved the requisites of a good model fit for both samples, and results of the MG-CFA
46
47 for this model are presented here. Results of the MG-CFA for the DI/DDF-EOT+CM+BF model
48
49 (best fitting model across the 18 competing factor structure models) are available in the
50
51
52 Supplementary Material.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
20
1
2
3 A configural invariance model was initially estimated, with the U.S. sample as the
4
5
6 reference group. Metric invariance model was subsequently estimated by constraining
7
8 unstandardized item factor loadings as equal across samples. The metric invariance model (weak
9
10 invariance) did not result in a significant decrease in fit relative to the configural model (–
11
12
13
2ΔLLcorrected = 34.850, Δdf = 27, p = .14, ΔCFI = –0.004, ΔTLI = –0.017). These results suggest
14
15 that the same latent factor was being measured for the U.S. and the Philippines samples, and that
16
17 the strength of the association between items and latent factors is relatively equal across groups.
18
19
The scalar model (strong invariance) was then estimated by constraining item intercepts
Fo
20
21
22 equal across samples. Model comparison indicated a significant decrease in model fit compared
23
rP
24 to the metric invariance model (–2ΔLLcorrected = 87.744, Δdf = 12, p < .01, ΔCFI = 0.008, ΔTLI =
25
26 0.005). Examination of the modification indices suggested that allowing items 1, 6, 7, and 13 to
ee
27
28
29 vary across samples would improve model fit. Intercepts for these items were allowed to freely
rR
30
31 vary between samples, and model comparisons suggested that the partial scalar model was not
32
ev
33 significantly worse compared to the metric model (–2ΔLLcorrected = 11.428, Δdf = 8, p = .179,
34
35
36
ΔCFI = 0.001, ΔTLI = –0.002). This indicates that the observed differences in item means
iew
37
38 between groups is due to factor mean differences, except for items 1, 6, 7, and 13. Examination
39
40 of item intercepts suggests that the U.S. sample, compared to the Philippines sample, had a lower
41
42
item response for item 1 (U.S. = 2.347, Philippines = 2.505), item 6 (U.S. = 2.355, Philippines =
43
44
45 2.626) and item 7 (U.S. = 1.933, Philippines = 2.167) but higher item response for item 13 (U.S.
46
47 = 2.053, Philippines = 1.918) at the same absolute trait level of the latent factors/constructs.
48
49 Due to the non-invariance in the scalar model, residual variances for items 1, 6, 7, and 13
50
51
52 were allowed to vary across samples. Equality of the unstandardized residual variances across
53
54 groups were subsequently examined (residual variance invariance model or strict invariance) by
55
56
57
58
59
21
1
2
3 constraining residual variances to be equal across groups, except for items 1, 6, 7, and 13. The
4
5
6 residual variance model had a significantly worse model fit compared to the partial scalar model
7
8 (–2ΔLLcorrected = 37.279, Δdf = 11, p < .01, ΔCFI = 0.004, ΔTLI = 0.001), and modification
9
10 indices indicated that the model could be improved by allowing items 3 and 14 residual
11
12
13
variances to vary across groups (–2ΔLLcorrected = 12.848, Δdf = 9, p = .170, ΔCFI = 0.000, ΔTLI =
14
15 –0.002). Equality of residual covariance between items 3 and 7 across groups was examined,
16
17 and results indicated no significant decrease in model fit compared to the partial residual
18
19
variance invariance model (–2ΔLLcorrected = 3.716, Δdf = 1, p = .054, ΔCFI = 0.001, ΔTLI =
Fo
20
21
22 0.000).
23
rP
24 Structural invariance was tested between the U.S. and Philippines samples. Constraining
25
26 latent factor variances to be equal across groups resulted in a worse model fit compared to the
ee
27
28
29 partial measurement model (–2ΔLLcorrected = 24.546, Δdf = 3, p < .01, ΔCFI = 0.002, ΔTLI =
rR
30
31 0.002). Modification indices indicated that allowing latent factor variance for DI/DDF to vary
32
ev
33 across samples would not make the model significantly worse than the partial measurement
34
35
36
model (–2ΔLLcorrected = 5.842, Δdf = 2, p = .059, ΔCFI = 0.000, ΔTLI = 0.000). With the U.S.
iew
37
38 sample as the reference group (DI/DDF latent factor variance = 1), the Philippines sample had
39
40 less variability in the DI/DDF (latent factor variance = 0.516). Constraining latent factor means
41
42
to be equal across samples resulted in a worse model fit compared to the partial factor variance
43
44
45 invariance model (–2ΔLLcorrected = 256.523, Δdf = 3, p < .01, ΔCFI = 0.026, ΔTLI = 0.027), and
46
47 modification indices suggest allowing the alexithymia general model to vary across samples.
48
49 Following this suggestion resulted in a non-significant difference between this model and the
50
51
52 partial factor variance invariance model (–2ΔLLcorrected = 1.770, Δdf = 2, p = .413, ΔCFI = 0.000,
53
54 ΔTLI = 0.000). Compared to the U.S. as the reference group (BF alexithymia general latent
55
56
57
58
59
22
1
2
3 factor mean = 0), the Philippines sample had a significantly higher level of general alexithymia
4
5
6 (latent factor M = 0.996).
7
8 In summary, MG-CFA results suggest similar factor loadings between the U.S. and
9
10 Philippines sample. There were group differences at the item intercept level, but even after
11
12
13
controlling these item intercept differences, the Philippines sample had a higher alexithymia
14
15 “true score” trait compared to the U.S. sample.
16
17 Discussion
18
19
TAS-20 Factor Structure
Fo
20
21
22 The majority of the psychometric studies on the TAS-20 indicate a three factor DIF-
23
rP
24 DDF-EOT structure (Taylor et al., 2003); however, this finding is not universal with several
25
26 studies suggesting between one- to four-factor solutions, including CLF, CM, and BF
ee
27
28
29 formulations (e.g., Haviland & Reise, 1996; Müller et al., 2003). This study expanded the
rR
30
31 current literature by simultaneously comparing 18 competing TAS-20 latent factor solutions
32
ev
33 using nested and non-nested model comparisons in samples from the U.S. and the Philippines.
34
35
36
Results of this study indicated that the DI/DDF-EOT+CM+BF model fit the data better than the
iew
37
38 other models examined. Several findings need to be emphasized. First, there was a high
39
40 correlation between the DIF and DDF latent factors, whether it was a CLF or a CLF+CM model.
41
42
This suggests that the DIF and the DDF factors might be measuring similar constructs or traits.
43
44
45 This result is not surprising as both factors tend to tap deficiencies in emotional awareness,
46
47 which necessarily involves difficulties in identifying and describing emotions. Aggregating the
48
49 DIF and DDF into one factor leads to a more parsimonious model, and consequently, a better
50
51
52 fitting model.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
23
1
2
3 Second, poor α and ω reliability estimates were observed for the EOT, IM, and PT in all
4
5
6 models examined. These results replicated previous studies (e.g., Kojima et al., 2001), and some
7
8 researchers have attributed the poor reliability to negatively worded items (Gignac et al., 2007;
9
10 Kojima et al., 2001). This study attempted to mitigate the impact of negatively worded items
11
12
13
when the common methods models were examined. Third, when these common method models
14
15 were examined, the negatively worded items had high factor loadings in the common method
16
17 factor, and loaded very low in the EOT, IM, and PT factors. In other words, after the negatively
18
19
worded nature of the items was accounted for, these items no longer loaded in the EOT, PT, or
Fo
20
21
22 IM factors. The rationale for the practice of using positively and negatively worded items was
23
rP
24 initially to prevent response bias; however, this results in psychometric issues and poor reliability
25
26 and model fit (Sonderen, Sanderman, & Coyne, 2013; see Weijters, Baumgartner, &
ee
27
28
29 Schillewaert, 2013, for issues presented by negatively worded items), which seems apparent in
rR
30
31 this study and in others (e.g., Gignac et al., 2007).
32
ev
33 Fourth, across the 18 competing models examined, bifactor models (specifically,

34
35
36
DI/DDF-EOT+CM+BF as the best fitting model) outperformed the CLF and CM models. This
iew
37
38 suggests that the TAS-20 is better accounted for by a general alexithymia construct, with
39
40 subfactors accounting for methodological and content similarities among the items. A bifactor
41
42
conceptualization of TAS-20 is consistent with other studies (Gignac et al., 2007; Reise et al.
43
44
45 2013), as well as the interview-based assessment of alexithymia (TSIA, Watters, Taylor, &
46
47 Bagby, 2016). Watters, Taylor, and Bagby (2016) even opined that a bifactor solution is more
48
49 consistent with how alexithymia was originally conceptualized by Nemiah et al. (1976). The
50
51
52 bifactor model, however, is not without criticisms. A central issue pertinent to this paper is the
53
54 tendency for “overfitting” when comparing bifactor models with other models, with bifactor
55
56
57
58
59
24
1
2
3 models capturing unwanted noise (Bonifay, Lane, & Reise, 2016). Bonifay et al.’s (2016)
4
5
6 solution to this problem is to use alternative statistics (i.e., PUC, ECV, ω, and ωH) in conjunction
7
8 with model fit statistics. As shown in Table 2, the DI/DDF-EOT+CM+BF’s bifactor alternative
9
10 statistics are poor at best. It is only when the negatively worded items are dropped that bifactor
11
12
13
model alternative statistics improved.
14
15 Because of the issues surrounding negatively worded items, we performed a post-hoc
16
17 bifactor CFA where said items were dropped. This model achieved the requisites of a good
18
19
model fit, and other bifactor model statistics (PUC, ECV, ωH) suggested a “unidimensional
Fo
20
21
22 enough” model (Reise, Scheines, et al., 2013). This strategy, however, is not without its own set
23
rP
24 of issues. Despite dropping negatively worded items, the EOT factor still had poor reliability
25
26 estimates. A closer inspection of the EOT items indicated low factor loadings on the EOT factor
ee
27
28
29 and the general alexithymia factor, which subsequently resulted in the poor reliability. This
rR
30
31 result could suggest that the EOT items, although measuring the alexithymia construct, measures
32
ev
33 it weakly. On the other hand, the weak factor loading of EOT items on the general alexithymia
34
35
36
factor does not absolutely conclude that the EOT factor and related items are not good indicators
iew
37
38 of alexithymia. Dropping items runs the risk of ending up with construct underrepresentation;
39
40 i.e., the latent factor no longer measures what it initially intended to measure because core items
41
42
have been dropped. Furthermore, because of the comparatively large number of DI/DDF items
43
44
45 retained and only a handful of EOT remained, it can be argued that the general alexithymia
46
47 factor purportedly being measured really taps into the difficulty identifying and describing
48
49 emotions, but not the full spectrum of alexithymia.
50
51
52 Initial theoretical conceptualizations of alexithymia have always included EOT as a core
53
54 part of alexithymia (Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 1994; Bagby, Taylor, & Parker, 1994). However,
55
56
57
58
59
25
1
2
3 factor analytic studies are essential to validate whether EOT is indeed a core component of
4
5
6 alexithymia, at least for the TAS-20. This paper is far from resolving the issue given the
7
8 methodological problems presented by the negatively worded items. One way to attain
9
10 resolution is for future studies to replicate this study with the TAS-20 negatively worded items
11
12
13
framed positively. If said replication study would still yield similar problems with the EOT, then
14
15 the general conceptualization of alexithymia might need rethinking.
16
17
18
19
TAS-20 Factor Structure between the U.S. and the Philippines
Fo
20
21
22 A secondary aim for this paper was to examine the measurement and structural
23
rP
24 invariance of the TAS-20 between U.S. and Philippines samples. In the bifactor model with
25
26 negatively worded items dropped, results indicated that the items were measuring similar latent
ee
27
28
29 factor constructs, specifically a general alexithymia construct. We also performed a MG-CFA to
rR
30
31 the DI/DDF-EOT+CM+BF model, and results indicated relative equivalence of the model
32
ev
33 between samples, at least at the factor loading level (see Supplemental Material). This indicates
34
35
36
that the items in the model have cross cultural generalizability and applicability, particularly to
iew
37
38 the Philippines. In other words, the U.S. and Philippines samples both conceptualize alexithymia
39
40 factors similarly and items tap the purported latent factor similarly across samples.
41
42
However, partial invariance was found at the item intercept level, and at the factor
43
44
45 variance and factor mean level. The MG-CFA indicated that there were systematic differences at
46
47 the item level, particularly items 1, 6, 7, and 13. In other words, even if latent factor scores or
48
49 “true scores” are set to be identical between the two groups, the items mentioned showed
50
51
52 systemic bias at the intercept level. However, even after accounting for the group differences at
53
54 the item intercept level (by allowing these item intercepts to vary across groups), factor mean
55
56
57
58
59
26
1
2
3 invariance model results revealed that the Philippines sample had a higher alexithymia general
4
5
6 factor score compared to the U.S. sample.
7
8 Literature on emotions in a Filipino sample is scarce, and for alexithymia, non-existent.
9
10 However, there is an extensive literature suggesting that culture has an impact on how emotions
11
12
13
are appraised, how intense they are experienced, and how people react to and self-regulate
14
15 emotions (e.g., Kitayama et al., 1995; Matsumoto et al., 2008). Among Filipinos, it is viable to
16
17 posit that culture accounts for the differences in alexithymia scores. For instance, the emphasis
18
19
on social desirability and interpersonal harmony, and the primacy of the group over the
Fo
20
21
22 individual (Agbayani-Siewert, 1994) could motivate Filipinos to suppress one’s emotions if
23
rP
24 expressing these emotions would interfere with the collective harmony. The Filipino cultural
25
26 values of pakikisama (loosely translated as social acceptance or conformity) and hiya (loosely
ee
27
28
29 translated as shame) highlights this point. Pakikisama encourages Filipinos to remain in
rR
30
31 harmony with their peers rather than vocalize disagreements or express emotions that would
32
ev
33 threaten group cohesion (Nadal, 2011). Hiya dissuades Filipinos from bringing shame,
34
35
36
disappointment, and embarrassment to the family, sometimes at the cost of suppressing one’s
iew
37
38 emotions and aggravating mental health issues (Nadal, 2011). More research on emotions and
39
40 alexithymia among Filipinos is still needed however.
41
42
Clinical and Research Implications
43
44
45 Results of this study indicated that the assumption of unidimensionality was supported
46
47 only for the model where the negative items were dropped (DI/DDF-EOT+BF). On the other
48
49 hand, for the original TAS-20 (i.e., measure with negatively worded items included), the
50
51
52 assumption of unidimensionality was not supported. These results have research and clinical
53
54 implications. Using the total scores for the original TAS-20, whether for research or clinical
55
56
57
58
59
27
1
2
3 purposes, is not recommended as specific factors, specifically the EOT, present
4
5
6 multidimensionality issues. In constrast, if the negatively worded items were dropped, using
7
8 summed scores is defensible, and conceptually, alexithymia can be considered as a unitary
9
10 construct. The bifactor solution with negatively worded items dropped is not without problems
11
12
13
though. Specifically, items in the EOT specific factor had either low standardized factor
14
15 loadings on the alexithymia general factor compared to items in the DI/DDF specific factor
16
17 (items 8 and 20), or had a higher factor loading in the EOT specific factor and low factor loading
18
19
on to alexithymia general factor (items 15 and 16). At this point, it is unclear whether the issue
Fo
20
21
22 is methodological (i.e., items were pertaining to “preferences”) or conceptual (i.e., whether EOT
23
rP
24 items are strong measures of alexithymia, or whether alexithymia is better measured with items
25
26 pertaining to emotion identification).
ee
27
28
29 This study documented partial invariance at the item intercept level and has shown factor
rR
30
31 mean differences between the U.S. and Philippines samples. Cross country comparison studies
32
ev
33 using ANOVA-based statistics have documented differences in alexithymia and subscale scores
34
35
36
(e.g., El Abiddine et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2007). One limitation of ANOVA-based comparisons
iew
37
38 is that it is not known whether the differences lie in the “true score” or due to systemic bias at the
39
40 item level. Results of this study indicated it can be both. Hence, it is important to first evaluate
41
42
invariance at the item level before conducting cross-cultural comparisons in alexithymia.
43
44
45 Furthermore, the use of cut-off scores (e.g., > 61) in identifying individuals with alexithymia in
46
47 different cultures is not encouraged as cultural factors and systemic item differences can impact
48
49 TAS scores.
50
51
52 Limitations and Future Directions
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
28
1
2
3 The results of this study should be tempered by its limitations. First, having a college
4
5
6 student sample limits the generalizability of the results, particularly given studies suggesting
7
8 differences in factor structure between student and patient samples (e.g., Zhu et al., 2007).
9
10 Future studies should replicate this study using a non-student sample. Furthermore, the U.S.
11
12
13
sample is significantly older (t = 16.47, p < .01) and had more non-traditionally aged students
14
15 compared to the Philippines sample, which could have accounted for the results and sample
16
17 differences presented here. Second, the analyses performed and the conclusions reached in this
18
19
study are predominantly statistically- and methods-driven. For instance, the negatively worded
Fo
20
21
22 items were dropped due to methodological rather than theoretical considerations, and said items
23
rP
24 could be essential to the conceptual definitions of alexithymia. Future research could examine
25
26 the conceptual importance of the dropped items, as well as examine whether phrasing the
ee
27
28
29 negatively worded items positively would impact the factor structure solution and model fit. In
rR
30
31 addition, future research should further examine the psychometric properties and the validity of
32
ev
33 the TAS measure with negative items dropped. Finally, this study did not examine convergent
34
35
36
and divergent validity, clinical utility, or the feasibility of a cut-off score, topics that future
iew
37
38 research can address.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
29
1
2
3 References
4
5
6 Agbayani-Siewert, P. (1994). Filipino American culture and family: Guidelines for practitioners.
7
8 Families in Society, 75(7), 429.
9
10 Bagby, R.M., Parker, J.D.A., & Taylor, G.J. (1994). The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia
11
12
13
Scale: I. Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure. Journal of
14
15 Psychosomatic Research, 38, 23–32.
16
17 Bagby, R. M., Taylor, G. J., Quilty, L. C., & Parker, J. D. (2007). Reexamining the factor
18
19
structure of the 20-item Toronto alexithymia scale: commentary on Gignac, Palmer, and
Fo
20
21
22 Stough. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89(3), 258-264.
23
rP
24 Bagby, R.M., Taylor, G.J., & Parker, J.D.A. (1994). The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia
25
26 Scale: II. Convergent, discriminant, and concurrent validity. Journal of Psychosomatic
ee
27
28
29 Research, 38, 33– 40.
rR
30
31 Bonifay, W., Lane, S.P., & Reise, S.P. (2016). Three concerns with applying a bifactor model as
32
ev
33 structure of psychopathology. Clinical Psychological Science, 5, 184 – 186.

34
35
36
Brown, T. A. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford
iew
37
38 Publications.
39
40 Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2004). Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC
41
42
in model selection. Sociological Methods & Research, 33(2), 261-304.
43
44
45 Chen, F. F. (2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making
46
47 inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of Personality and Social
48
49 Psychology, 95(5), 1005-1018.
50
51
52 Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing
53
54 measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255.
55
56
57
58
59
30
1
2
3 Cleland, C., Magura, S., Foote, J., Rosenblum, A., & Kosanke, N. (2005). Psychometric
4
5
6 properties of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) for substance users. Journal of
7
8 Psychosomatic Research, 58, 299 – 306.
9
10 Dehgani, F., Dehgani, F., Kafaie, P., & Taghizadeh, M.R. (2017). Alexithymia in different
11
12
13
dermatologic patients. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 25, 42 – 45.
14
15 El Abiddine, F. Z., Dave, H., Aldhafri, S., El-Astal, S., Hemaid, F., & Parker, J. D. (2017).
16
17 Cross-validation of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale: Results from an Arabic
18
19
multicenter study. Personality and Individual Differences, 113, 219-222.
Fo
20
21
22 Erni, T., Lötscher, K., & Modestin, J. (1997). Two-factor solution of the 20-ltem Toronto
23
rP
24 alexithymia scale confirmed. Psychopathology, 30(6), 335-340.

25
26 Gignac, G.E., Palmer, B.R., & Stough, C. (2007). A confirmatory factor analytic investigation
ee
27
28
29 of the TAS-20: Corroboration of a five-factor model and suggestions for improvement.
rR
30
31 Journal of Personality Assessment, 89 (3), 247 – 257.
32
ev
33 Haviland, M.G., & Reise, S.P. (1996). Structure of the twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale.
34
35
36
Journal of Personality Assessment, 66 (1), 116 – 125.
iew
37
38 Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Matsumoto, H. (1995). Culture, self, and emotions: A cultural
39
40 perspective on “self-conscious” emotions. In J. P. Tangney & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Self-
41
42
conscious emotions (pp. 439– 464). New York: Guilford Press.
43
44
45 Kojima, M., Frasure-Smith, N., & Lespérance, F. (2001). Alexithymia following myocardial
46
47 infarction: Psychometric properties and correlates of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale.
48
49 Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 51, 487 – 495.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
31
1
2
3 Kooiman, C.G., Spinhoven, P., & Trijsburg, R.W. (2002). The assessment of alexithymia: A
4
5
6 critical review of the literature and a psychometric study of the Toronto Alexithymia
7
8 Scale – 20. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 53, 1083 – 1090.
9
10 Lambert, M. C., Samms-Vaughan, M. E., Lyubansky, M., Rose, D., Hannah, S. D., Grandison,
11
12
13
T., ... & Durst, J. (1999). Identification of emotions and emotional confusion in Jamaican
14
15 adults: Do they predict severity and types of psychopathology. West Indian Medical
16
17 Journal, 48, 203-207.
18
19
Loas, G., Corcos, M., Stephan, P., Pellet, J., Bizouard, P., Venisse, J.L., …, Reseau INSERM no.
Fo
20
21
22 4944013. Factorial structure of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale: Confirmatory
23
rP
24 factorial analyses in nonclinical and clinical samples. Journal of Psychosomatic

25
26 Research, 50, 255 – 261.
ee
27
28
29 Mattila, A. K., Keefer, K. V., Taylor, G. J., Joukamaa, M., Jula, A., Parker, J. D. A., Bagby, R.
rR
30
31 M. (2010). Taxometric analysis of alexithymia in a general population sample from
32
ev
33 Finland. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(3), 216-221.

34
35
36
Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S.H., Fontane, J., Wong, A.,M., Arriola, M., Ataca, B., …, Grossi, E.
iew
37
38 (2008). Mapping expressive differences around the world: The relationship between
39
40 emotional display rules and individualism versus collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural
41
42
Psychology, 39(1), 55 – 74.
43
44
45 Meganck, R., Vanheule, S., & Desmet, M. (2008). Factorial validity and measurement
46
47 invariance of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale in clinical and nonclinical samples.
48
49 Assessment, 15 (1), 36 – 47.
50
51
52 Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance.
53
54 Psychometrika, 58(4), 525-543.
55
56
57
58
59
32
1
2
3 Merkle, E.C., You, D., & Preacher, K.J. (2016). Testing nonnested structural equation models.
4
5
6 Psychological Methods, 21 (2), 151 – 163.
7
8 Moriguchi, Y., Maeda, M., Igarashi, T., Ishikawa, T., Shoji, M., Kubo, C., & Komaki, G. (2007).
9
10 Age and gender effect on alexithymia in large, Japanese community and clinical samples:
11
12
13
a cross-validation study of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). BioPsychoSocial
14
15 medicine, 1(1), 7.
16
17 Müller, J., Bühner, M., & Ellgring, H. (2003). Is there a reliable factorial structure in the 20-item
18
19
Toronto Alexithymia Scale? A comparison of factor models in clinical and normal adult
Fo
20
21
22 samples. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 55, 561 – 568.
23
rP
24 Muthén, B. O., Kaplan, D., & Hollis, M. (1987). On structural equation modeling with data that
25
26 are not missing completely at random. Psychometrika, 52, 431–462.
ee
27
28
29 Nadal, K.L. (2011). Filipino American Psychology: A Handbook of Theory, Research, and
rR
30
31 Clinical Practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
32
ev
33 Nemiah, J.C., Freyberger, H., Sifneos, P.E., (1976). Alexithymia: a view of the psychosomatic
34
35
36
process. Hill, O., (Ed.), Modern Trends in Psychosomatic Medicine. Butterworths,
iew
37
38 London 3, 430–439.
39
40 Parker, J.D.A., Taylor, G.J., & Bagby, R.M. (1998). Alexithymia: Relationship with ego
41
42
defense and coping styles. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 39 (2), 91 – 98.
43
44
45 Parker, J.D.A., Taylor, G.J., & Bagby, R.M. (2003). The 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale III.
46
47 Reliability and factorial validity in a community population. Journal of Psychosomatic
48
49 Research, 55, 269 – 275.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
33
1
2
3 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social
4
5
6 science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of
7
8 Psychology, 63, 539-569.
9
10 Preece, D., Becerra, R., Robinson, K., & Dandy, J. (2018). Assessing alexithymia: Psychometric
11
12
13
properties and factorial invariance of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale in
14
15 nonclinical and psychiatric samples. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
16
17 Assessment, 40, 276 – 287.
18
19
Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral
Fo
20
21
22 Research, 47(5), 667-696.
23
rP
24 Reise, S.P., Bonifay, W.E., & Haviland, M.G. (2013). Scoring and modeling psychological
25
26 measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95
ee
27
28
29 (2), 129 – 140.
rR
30
31 Reise, S.P., Moore, T.M., & Haviland, M.G. (2010). Bifactor models and rotations: Exploring
32
ev
33 the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. Journal of
34
35
36
Personality Assessment, 92 (6), 544 – 559.
iew
37
38 Reise, S.P., Scheines, R., Widaman, K.F., & Haviland, M.G. (2013). Multidimensionality and
39
40 structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: A bifactor perspective.
41
42
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73 (1), 5 – 26.
43
44
45 Rodriguez, A., Reise, S.P., & Haviland, M.G. (2015). Applying bifactor statistical indices in the
46
47 evaluation of psychological measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98, 223-237.
48
49 Satorra A. (2000). Scaled and readjusted restricted tests in multi-sample analysis of moment
50
51
52 structures. In Heijmans R. D. H, Pollock D. S. G., Satorra, A., editors. Innovations in
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
34
1
2
3 multivariate statistical analysis. A Festschrift for Heinz Neudecker (pp.233-247).
4
5
6 London: London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
7
8 Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., & Diener, E. (2002). Cultural influences on the relation between
9
10 pleasant emotions and unpleasant emotions: Asian dialectic philosophies or
11
12
13
individualism-collectivism? Cognition and Emotion, 16 (6), 705 – 719.
14
15 Smith, G. T., & McCarthy, D. M. (1995). Methodological considerations in the refinement of
16
17 clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 300 – 308.
18
19
Sonderen, E.V., Sanderman, R., & Coyne, J.C. (2013). Ineffectiveness of reverse wording of
Fo
20
21
22 questionnaire items: Let’s learn from cows in the rain. PLoS ONE, 8 (7), e68967.
23
rP
24 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068967
25
26 Taylor, G.J., Bagby, R.M., & Parker, J.D.A. (2003). The 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale:
ee
27
28
29 IV. Reliability and factorial validity in different languages and cultures. Journal of
rR
30
31 Psychosomatic Rsearch, 55, 277 – 283.
32
ev
33 Tsaousis, I., Taylor, G., Quilty, L., Georgiadese, S., Stavrogiannopoulos, M., & Bagby, R.M.
34
35
36
(2010). Validation of a Greek adaptation of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale.
iew
37
38 Comprehensive Psychiatry, 51, 443 – 448.
39
40 Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis of comparative research.
41
42
In J. W. Berry, Y. H. Poortinga, & J. Pandey (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural
43
44
45 psychology (2nd ed.). (pp. 257-300). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
46
47 Vandenberg, R.J. & Lance, C.E. (2003). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance
48
49 literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research.
50
51
52 Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-70.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
35
1
2
3 Vuong, Q. H. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses.
4
5
6 Econometrica, 57, 307–333.
7
8 Watters, C., Taylor, G. J., Ayearst, L., & Bagby, R. M. (2016). Measurement invariance of the
9
10 English and French language versions of the 20-item Toronto alexithymia scale.
11
12
13
European Journal of Psychological Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/
14
15 a000365.
16
17 Watters, C.A., Taylor, G.J., & Bagby, R.M. (2016). Illuminating the theoretical components of
18
19
alexithymia using bifactor modelling and network analysis. Psychological Assessment,
Fo
20
21
22 28 (6), 627 – 638.
23
rP
24 Weijters, B., Baumgartner, H., & Schillewaert, N. (2013). Reverse item bias: An integrative
25
26 model. Psychological Methods, 18 (3), 320 – 334.
ee
27
28
29 Zhu, X., Yi, J., Yao, S., Ryder, A.G., Taylor, G.J., Bagby, R.M. (2007). Cross-cultural
rR
30
31 validation of a Chinese translation of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale.
32
ev
33 Comprehensive Psychiatry, 48, 489 – 496.

34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 Table 1
4
5 Model Fit Indices for the Correlated Latent Factor Model, Common Methods Factors Model, and Bifactor Model
6
7
8
χ2 df CFI TLI RMSEA 90% CI pclosefit SRMR AIC BIC
9 A. Correlated Latent Factor Model
10 1. U.S. Sample
11 ALEX Model 2874.762* 170 .697 .661 .100 .097; .103 <.001 .089 83501.617 83823.831
Fo
12 DI/DDF-EOT Model 2151.023* 169 .778 .750 .086 .083; .089 <.001 .084 82550.172 82877.756
13
DIF-DDF-EOT Model 1886.726* 167 .807 .781 .081 .077; .084 <.001 .081 82215.332 82553.656
rP
14
15 DI/DDF-PT-IM Model 2200.550* 167 .772 .741 .088 .084; .091 <.001 .083 82544.435 82882.760
16 DIF-DDF-PT-IM Model 1930.082* 164 .802 .771 .082 .079; .086 <.001 .080 82210.849 82565.285
ee
17 2. Philippines Sample
18 ALEX Model 615.029* .784 <.001
170 .758 .076 .069; .082 .074 23329.023 23576.372
rR
19
20 DI/DDF-EOT Model 564.056* 169 .808 .784 .072 .065; .078 <.001 .095 23251.181 23502.653
21 DIF-DDF-EOT Model 546.456* 167 .816 .790 .094 .064; .077 <.001 .094 23234.843 23494.560
ev
22 DI/DDF-PT-IM Model 559.094* 167 .809 .783 .072 .065; .078 <.001 .075 23234.581 23494.298
23 DIF-DDF-PT-IM Model 539.179* 164 .818 .789 .071 .064; .078 <.001 .074 23219.067 23491.151
iew
24
25
26 B. Common Methods Factor Model
27 1. U.S. Sample
28 ALEX+CM Model 1842.060* 165 .812 .783 .080 .077; .083 <.001 .058 82198.120 82547.185
29 DI/DDF-EOT+CM Model 1688.405* 164 .829 .802 .077 .073; .080 <.001 .057 81985.542 82339.977
30 DIF-DDF-EOT+CM Model 1395.371* 162 .862 .838 .069 .066; .073 <.001 .053 81610.559 81975.735
31
32 DI/DDF-PT-IM+CM Model 1630.607* 162 .835 .807 .076 .072; .079 <.001 .054 81927.837 82293.013
33 DIF-DDF-PT-IM+CM Model 1325.693* 159 .869 .844 .068 .065; .071 <.001 .049 81544.179 81925.465
35 ALEX+CM Model 427.415* 165 .873 .853 .059 .052; .066 .015 .054 23115.419 23383.381
36 DI/DDF-EOT+CM Model 392.048* 164 .889 .872 .055 .048; .062 .108 .053 23071.830 23343.915
37
38 DIF-DDF-EOT+CM Model 381.668* 162 .893 .875 .055 .047; .062 .142 .053 23061.786 23342.116
39 DI/DDF-PT-IM+CM Model 384.489* 162 .892 .873 .055 .048; .062 .125 .050 23062.675 23343.005
40 DIF-DDF-PT-IM+CM Model a 355.993* 159 .904 .886 .052 .045; .059 .306 .051 23037.771 23330.468
41 Table Continues
42
43
44
46
47
1
2
3
4 Table 1. Continued.
5
χ2 df CFI TLI RMSEA 90% CI pclosefit SRMR AIC BIC
6
7 C. Bifactor Model
8 1. U.S. Sample
9 DI/DDF-EOT+BF Model 1368.911* 150 .863 .827 .072 .068; .075 <.001 .056 81580.120 82009.738
10 DIF-DDF-EOT+BF Model 1402.598* 150 .860 .822 .073 .069; .076 <.001 .057 81533.755 81963.373
11
Fo
DI/DDF-PT-IM+BF Model 1516.752* 150 .847 .806 .076 .072; .079 <.001 .064 81769.306 82198.925
12
13 DIF-DDF-PT-IM+BF Model 1350.599* 150 .845 .804 .076 .073; .080 <.001 .066 81723.533 82153.152
rP
15 DI/DDF-EOT+BF Model 371.410* 150 .892 .864 .057 .050; .064 .059 .059 23062.965 23392.765
16 DIF-DDF-EOT+BF Model
ee
421.569* 150 .868 .833 .063 .056; .070 .001 .056 23121.818 23451.618
17
DI/DDF-PT-IM+BF Model b NO CONVERGENCE
18
rR
19 DIF-DDF-PT-IM+BF Model c NO CONVERGENCE
20
21 D. Bifactor + Common Methods Factor Model
ev
22 1. U.S. Sample
23
DI/DDF-EOT+CM+BF Model 895.580* 145 .916 .890 .057 .054; .061 .001 .041 81028.858 81485.328
iew
24
25 DIF-DDF-EOT+CM+BF Model 896.083* 145 .916 .890 .057 .054; .061 .001 .042 81020.908 81477.378
26 DI/DDF-PT-IM+CM+BF Model d 919.562* 145 .913 .886 .058 .054; .062 <.001 .043 81059.235 81515.704
27 DIF-DDF-PT-IM+CM+BF Model d 915.425* 145 .914 .887 .058 .054; .061 <.001 .043 81048.281 81504.751
28
29
2. Philippines Sample
30
31 DI/DDF-EOT+CM+BF Model 324.713* 145 .913 .886 .052 .045; .060 .312 .045 23015.701 23366.113
32 DIF-DDF-EOT+CM+BF Model 329.413* 145 .910 .883 .053 .045; .060 .262 .046 23025.183 23375.595
33 DI/DDF-PT-IM+CM+BF Model NO CONVERGENCE
34 DIF-DDF-PT-IM+CM+BF Model 368.845* 145 .891 .857 .058 .051; .066 .034 .050 23065.622 23416.034
35
36
37 E. Bifactor Model with Negatively Worded Items Dropped
38 1. U.S. Sample 418.564* 74 .950 .929 .054 .049; .059 .085 .038 61222.477 61550.061
39 2. Philippines Sample 180.740* 74 .937 .911 .056 .046; .067 .155 .038 17618.177 17869.649
40 * p < .01.
41
42
43
44
46
47
1
2
3 Note: CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; pclosefit = RMSEA p of
4 close fit; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion.
5 Figures in bold indicate exceeding minimum requisite of a good model fit for the specific model fit index. a. Resulted in a linear dependency
6
between IM and PT latent factors, with latent factor correlations > 1. b. No Convergence, number of iterations exceeded. Issue stems from a
7
negative residual estimate in item 5.
8 c. No Convergence, number of iterations exceeded. Issue stems from a negative residual estimate in item 8. d Model resulted in a negative residual
9
10 variance in item 15 for the 3-Factor DI/DDF-PT-IM+CM+BF (–2.184) and the 4-Factor DIF-DDF-PT-IM+CM+BF Model (–1.211).
11
Fo
12
13
rP
14
15
16
ee
17
18
rR
19
20
21
ev
22
23
iew
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
46
47
1
2
3 Table 2
4
5
6 Standardized Parameter Estimates for the DI/DDF+CM+BF Models – U.S. and Philippines
7 Samples
8
9 U.S. Sample Philippines Sample
10 CM BF DI/DDF EOT CM
Item BF DI/DDF EOT
11
12 02 .567* .663* .311* .697*
13 04 .355* .546* .413* .030 .630* .699
14 11 .559* .343* .393* .560*
15 12 .464* .342* .424* .365*
16
17 .402* .299* .330* .358*
17
18 01 .665* .436* .351* .704*
19 03 .679* – .124 .395* .306*
Fo
20 06 .679* .195 .415* .450*
21 07 .799* – .145 .433* .374*
22
09 .720* .289* .375* .649*
23
rP
24 13 .792* .136 .471* .615*

25 14 .700* .056 .455* .443*
26 05 – .009 .071 .475* – .038 .317* .379
ee
27 08 .212* .294* .484* .172

28
10 .107* .092* .686* – .001 .323* .311
29
.294* – .006
rR
30 15 .122* .525*
31 16 .087* .581* .325* .024
32 18 .099* .014 .573* – .167 .484* .103
ev
33 19 .094* .113* .704* .017 .695* .274

34
20 .244* .236* .525* – .119
35
36
iew
37 M 47.325 27.828 19.528 56.321 35.995 20.356

38 SD 10.580 8.975 3.808 9.743 8.373 3.328
39 α .851 .902 .551 .697 .833 .888 .450 .588
40
ECV .571 .190 .084 .156 .348 .474 .094 .084
41
42 ω .894 .917 .465 .749 .871 .897 .478 .537
43 ωH/ωHS .689 .149 .376 .707 .387 .591 .264 .532
44
45
46 *p < .05.
47 Note: DI/DDF = Difficulty Identifying/Difficulty Describing Feelings; EOT = Externally-Oriented
48
Thinking; BF = Alexithymia general factor; CM = Common Methods Factor – latent factor for negatively
49
50 worded items. ECV = Explained Common Variance. ωH = omega hierarchical; ωHS = omega
51 hierarchical subscale. Percent of Uncontaminated Correlations (PUC) for this analysis is .452.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 Table 3
4
5
6 Standardized Parameter Estimates for the Bifactor Models with Negatively Worded Items
7 Dropped
8
9 U.S. Sample Philippines Sample
10 BF DI/DDF EOT
Item BF DI/DDF EOT
11
12 02 .696* -.598* .755* .247
13 11 .634* -.151* .681* -.073
14 12 .531* -.201* .529* -.094
15 17 .465* -.158* .475* -.007
16
01 .749* -.279* .787* .111
17
18 03 .565* .099 .463 -.171
19 06 .706* -.039 .605* .139
Fo
20 07 .689* .183* .540* -.139
21 09 .775* -.090 .748* .056
22
13 .827* .116 .800* -.396
23
rP
24 14 .720* .157 .622* -.126

25 08 .203* .254* .307* .396*
26 15 .138* .498* .059 .461*
ee
27 16 .091* .635* .142* .418*

28
20 .245* .229* .312* .331*
29
rR
30
31 M 35.614 25.067 10.493 44.143 32.838 11.305
32 SD 9.419 8.409 2.570 9.126 7.859 2.605
ev
33 α .867 .900 .478 .861 .883 .502

34
ECV .747 .101 .107 .803 .056 .099
35
36 ω .888 .906 .500 .873 .885 .508
iew
37 ωH/ ωHS .841 .020 .426 .832 .004 .399

38
39
40 *p < .05.
41 Note: BF = Alexithymia general factor; DI/DD = Difficulty Identifying/Difficulty Describing Feelings;
42
43
EOT = Externally-Oriented Thinking. ECV = Explained Common Variance. ωH = omega hierarchical;
44 ωHS = omega hierarchical subscale. Percent of Uncontaminated Correlation (PUC) for this analysis for
45 this analysis is .419.
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 Figure 1. Measurement Model of the 1- to 4-Factor Correlated Latent Factor Model.
4
5
6 A. 1-Factor ALEX Model
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Fo
20 B. 2-Factor DI/DDF-EOT Model
21
22
23
rP
24
25
26
ee
27
28
29
rR
30
31
32
ev
33
34
35
36
iew
37 C. 3-Factor DIF-DDF-EOT Model

38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 D. 3-Factor DI/DDF-PT-IM Model
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Fo
20
21
22 E. 4-Factor DIF-DDF-PT-IM Model
23
rP
24
25
26
ee
27
28
29
rR
30
31
32
ev
33
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Note: ALEX = Alexithymia; DI/DDF = Difficulty Identifying/Difficulty Describing Feelings;
44 DDF = Difficulty Describing Feelings; DIF = Difficulty Identifying Feelings; EOT = Externally-
45 Oriented Thinking; IM = Importance of Emotions; PT = Pragmatic Thinking.
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 Figure 2. Measurement Model of the DIF-DDF-EOT Common Method Factor Model
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Fo
20
21
22
23
rP
24
25
26 Note: DDF = Difficulty Describing Feelings; DIF = Difficulty Identifying Feelings; EOT =
ee
27
Externally-Oriented Thinking; CM = Common Method Factor – latent factor for negatively
28
29 worded items. The shorthand for this model is DIF-DDF-EOT+CM, with +CM denoting the
rR
30 addition of the common method factor to the 3-Factor DIF-DDF-EOT model. This paper
31 examined the addition of a common method factor to the ALEX, DI/DDF-EOT, DIF-DDF-EOT,
32 DI/DDF-PT-IM, and the DIF-DDF-PT-IM correlated latent factor models.
ev
33
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 Figure 3. Measurement Model of the DIF-DDF-EOT Bifactor Model
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Fo
20
21
22
23
rP
24
26 Externally-Oriented Thinking; BF = Alexithymia General Factor. The shorthand for this model
ee
27
is DIF-DDF-EOT+BF, with +BF denoting the addition of the alexithymia general factor to the 3-
28
29 Factor DIF-DDF-EOT model. This paper examined the addition of an alexithymia general factor
rR
30 to the DI/DDF-EOT, DIF-DDF-EOT, DI/DDF-PT-IM, and the DIF-DDF-PT-IM correlated

31 latent factor models. All latent factors in a bifactor model are presumed to be orthogonal or
32 uncorrelated.
ev
33
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 Figure 4. Measurement Model of the DIF-DDF-EOT Bifactor and Common Methods
4
5
Factor Model
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Fo
20
21
22
23
rP
24
25
ee
27
Externally-Oriented Thinking; CM = Common Method Factor – latent factor for negatively
28
29 worded items; BF = Alexithymia General Factor. The shorthand for this model is DIF-DDF-
rR
30 EOT+CM+BF, with +CM denoting addition of the common method factor and +BF denoting the
31 addition of the alexithymia general factor to the 3-Factor DIF-DDF-EOT model. This paper
32 examined the addition of an alexithymia general factor to the DI/DDF-EOT, DIF-DDF-EOT,
ev
33 DI/DDF-PT-IM, and the DIF-DDF-PT-IM correlated latent factor models. All latent factors in a
34 bifactor model are presumed to be orthogonal or uncorrelated.
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
View publication stats

POO65432

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

POO65432

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Toronto Alexithymia Scale–20: Examining 18 Competing Factor Structure

Article in Assessment · January 2019

Antover Tuliao Bernice Vania Landoy Mamauag

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Psychological First Aid by the MHPSS Group of PAP View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Toronto Alexithymia Scale – 20: Examining 18 Competing

Toronto Alexithymia Scale 20, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Bifactor

33 instrument can be aggregated or summed if evidence of unidimensionality is present. Otherwise,

33 (M = 43.93, SD = 9.12, n = 414; t = 12.74, df = 885, p < .01). In an aggregated Arab-speaking

24 Bifactor model statistics. Statistics are available to evaluate the uni- or

33 Fourth, across the 18 competing models examined, bifactor models (specifically,

33 structure of psychopathology. Clinical Psychological Science, 5, 184 – 186.

24 alexithymia scale confirmed. Psychopathology, 30(6), 335-340.

24 factorial analyses in nonclinical and clinical samples. Journal of Psychosomatic

33 Finland. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(3), 216-221.

33 Comprehensive Psychiatry, 48, 489 – 496.

24 13 .792* .136 .471* .615*

27 08 .212* .294* .484* .172

33 19 .094* .113* .704* .017 .695* .274

37 M 47.325 27.828 19.528 56.321 35.995 20.356

24 14 .720* .157 .622* -.126

27 16 .091* .635* .142* .418*

33 α .867 .900 .478 .861 .883 .502

37 ωH/ ωHS .841 .020 .426 .832 .004 .399

37 C. 3-Factor DIF-DDF-EOT Model

30 to the DI/DDF-EOT, DIF-DDF-EOT, DI/DDF-PT-IM, and the DIF-DDF-PT-IM correlated

View publication stats

You might also like