ArticlePain reports2025
Assessing alexithymia in chronic pain: psychometric properties of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 and Perth Alexithymia Questionnaire.
Article in Pain reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Temporal pathways between alexithymia, psychological distress, and pain: An autoregressive mediation analysis.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2026Article
- Alexithymia and Psychological Profile in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Clinical and Immunological Correlates.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- A Latent Profile Analysis of Psychological, Personality, and Religious Characteristics in Iranian Adults With Chronic Pain.Pain research & management · 2026Article
- Latent profile of alexithymia in Chinese nursing students and its relationship with anxiety, depression, and stress: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- The Association Between Alexithymia, Interoception, and Pain in Pediatric Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review.Integrative medicine reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Alexithymia is elevated in chronic pain and relates to poor pain-related outcomes. However, despite concerns from other clinical populations, the psychometric properties of alexithymia measures have not been rigorously established in chronic pain. Objective: This study examined the psychometric properties of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 Item (TAS-20) and the Perth Alexithymia Questionnaire (PAQ) in adults with chronic pain. Methods: An online sample of adults with chronic pain across the United States (N = 1453) completed the TAS-20, PAQ, and related questionnaires at baseline, 3-month follow-up, and 12-month follow-up. Results: Both measures showed good temporal stability, convergent validity (with emotion regulation scores), divergent validity (with depression and anxiety scores), and criterion validity. Some concerns were raised about the TAS-20: the original 3-factor structure showed a poor model fit; the Externally Oriented Thinking subscale of the TAS-20 had poor factor loadings and unacceptable internal consistency; and, we identified several TAS-20 items that may slightly inflate the predictive validity of the TAS-20 on pain-related outcomes. The original 5-factor structure of the PAQ showed a good fit; each PAQ subscale had good factor loadings and excellent internal consistency. Conclusions: Both the TAS-20 and PAQ had psychometric strengths. Our data raised some concern for the use of TAS-20 subscales; the PAQ may be a psychometrically stronger option, particularly for investigators interested in alexithymia subscale analysis in people with chronic pain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.