Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40597410›Full record

ArticleBMC psychology2025

Does the Chinese version of 20-item Toronto alexithymia scale (TAS-20-C) measure alexithymia in Chinese young adolescents? Evidence from confirmatory factor analysis, network analysis, and latent profile analysis.

Yuhan Ni, Shuanghu Fang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Yuhan NiSchool of Educational Science, Anhui Normal University, Wuhu, China.
Shuanghu FangSchool of Educational Science, Anhui Normal University, Wuhu, China. fsh9075@163.com.

Funding

the National Social Science Fund of China 23BSH132
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) is a measure of three components of alexithymia: difficulty identifying feelings (DIF), difficulty describing feelings (DDF), and externally oriented thinking (EOT). Although TAS-20 is being increasingly used to measure the alexithymia construct, ongoing controversies remain regarding its internal structure and cross-cultural and cross-group applicability. This study evaluated the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of TAS-20 (TAS-20-C) among 1,355 Chinese young adolescents (mean age = 13.13; SD = 1.00; 52.6% boys) through multiple analytic approaches (i.e., confirmatory factor analysis, network analysis, and latent profile analysis). The confirmatory factor analysis showed reasonable goodness-of-fit for the bi-factorial model with three-dimensional structure and a negatively keyed item factor. However, the results derived from all analytic approaches suggested several items with poor psychometric properties (items 5, 10, 16, 18, 19, 20 from EOT and item 12 from DDF), including poor factor loading on their intended factor, low connectivity and predictability in the item network, and insufficient discrimination across heterogeneous groups. These issues could be attributed to an overabundance of negatively keyed items, translation biases, and the poor readability of certain items. The findings highlight the need for targeted revisions to both the wording and the content for these items, and offer insights into higher priority interventions aimed at improving alexithymia.

Indexed as

Affective SymptomsPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesAdolescentChinaFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMalePsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsAlexithymiaConfirmatory factor analysisLatent profile analysisNetwork analysisPsychometric propertiesTAS-20Young adolescents

Identifiers

PMID40597410
PMCPMC12220322

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.