Background: Assessments of personality constructs increasingly use self-report and structured interview instruments, which allow for a multimethod measurement approach and decrease specific measurement method bias. The aim of this study was to develop a valid and reliable structured interview for assessing the alexithymia construct. Methods: Sixty interview questions were written initially, each with a set of scoring criteria and prompts and probes to elicit information assisting in the scoring of the respondents’ answers. Results: After pilot testing, the number of questions was reduced to 43, which were administered to 136 community participants and 97 psychiatric outpatients. A series of item and scale analyses further reduced the item pool to 24 items. Principal component analysis and confirmatory factor analysis of these 24 items revealed preliminary evidence of a hierarchical, four-factor structure, with four lower factors nested within two higher-order latent factors. This structural configuration resulted in the Toronto Structured Interview for Alexithymia (TSIA) with two domain scales and four facet scales. The TSIA and its six scales demonstrated acceptable levels of interrater, internal, and retest reliability. The TSIA and its scales correlated modestly but significantly with the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale and its three factor scales, providing some support for the concurrent validity of this interview. Conclusion: The TSIA appears to be a promising structured interview for assessing alexithymia.

Keywords:
Alexithymia, Toronto Structured Interview for Alexithymia, Toronto Alexithymia Scale, Concurrent validity
1.
Nemiah JC, Freyberger H, Sifneos PE: Alexithymia: a view of the psychosomatic process; in Hill OW (ed): Modern Trends in Psychosomatic Medicine. London, Butterworths, 1976, vol 3, pp 430–439.
2.
Nemiah JC, Sifneos PE: Affect and fantasy in patients with psychosomatic disorders; in Hill OW (ed): Modern Trends in Psychosomatic Medicine. London, Butterworths, 1970, vol 2, pp 26–34.
3.
Taylor GJ, Ryan DP, Bagby RM: Toward the development of a new self-report alexithymia scale. Psychother Psychosom 1985;44:191–199.
4.
Bagby RM, Parker JD, Taylor GJ: The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale. 1. Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure. J Psychosom Res 1994;38:23–32.
5.
Bagby RM, Taylor GJ, Parker JD: The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale. 2. Convergent, discriminant, and concurrent validity. J Psychosom Res 1994;38:33–40.
6.
Parker JD, Bagby RM, Taylor GJ, Endler NS, Schmitz P: Factorial validity of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale. Eur J Pers 1993;7:221–232.
7.
Taylor GJ, Bagby RM: New trends in alexithymia research. Psychother Psychosom 2004;73:68–77.
8.
Taylor GJ: Recent developments in alexithymia theory and research. Can J Psychiatry 2000;45:134–142.
9.
Taylor GJ, Bagby RM, Parker JD: The 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale. 4. Reliability and factorial validity in different languages and cultures. J Psychosom Res 2003;55:277–283.
10.
Taylor GJ, Bagby RM, Parker JD: Disorders of Affect Regulation: Alexithymia in Medical and Psychiatric Illness. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997.
11.
Lane RD, Ahern GL, Schwartz GE, Kaszniak AW: Is alexithymia the emotional equivalent of blindsight? Biol Psychiatry 1997;42:834–844.
12.
Lundh LG, Johnsson A, Sundqvist K, Olsson H: Alexithymia, memory of emotion, emotional awareness, and perfectionism. Emotion 2002;2:361–379.
13.
Kooiman CG, Spinhoven P, Trijsburg RW: The assessment of alexithymia: a critical review of the literature and a psychometric study of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20. J Psychosom Res 2002;53:1083–1090.
14.
Sifneos PE: Alexithymia: past and present. Am J Psychiatry 1996;153:137–142.
15.
Vorst HCM, Bermond B: Validity and reliability of the Bermond-Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire. Pers Individ Dif 2001;30:413–434.
16.
Arimura T, Komaki G, Murakami S, Tamagawa K, Nishikata H, Kawai K, Nozaki T, Takii M, Kubo C: Development of the structured interview by the modified edition of Beth Israel Hospital Psychosomatic Questionnaire (SIBIQ) in Japanese edition to evaluate alexithymia. Jpn J Psychosom Med 2002;42:259–269.
17.
Lumley M, Davis M, Labouvie-Viet G, Clement R, Barry R, Simon T: Multiple measures of emotional abilities: their interrelationships and associations with physical symptoms (abstract). Psychosom Med 2002;64:233.
18.
Martínez-Sánchez F: The Spanish version of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). Clin Salud 1996;19–32.
19.
Taylor GJ, Bagby RM: Measurement of alexithymia. Recommendations for clinical practice and future research. Psychiatr Clin North Am 1988;11:351–366.
20.
Rafanelli C, Roncuzzi R, Finos L, Tossani E, Tomba E, Mangelli L, Urbinati S, Pinelli G, Fava GA: Psychological assessment in cardiac rehabilitation. Psychother Psychosom 2003; 72:343–349.
21.
Porcelli P, De Carne M: Criterion-related validity of the diagnostic criteria for psychosomatic research for alexithymia in patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders. Psychother Psychosom 2001;70:184–188.
22.
Fava GA, Freyberger HJ, Bech P, Christodoulou G, Sensky T, Theorell T, Wise TN: Diagnostic criteria for use in psychosomatic research. Psychother Psychosom 1995;63:1–8.
23.
Haviland MG, Warren WL, Riggs ML, Gallacher M: Psychometric properties of the Observer Alexithymia Scale in a clinical sample. J Pers Assess 2001;77:176–186.
24.
Porcelli P, Meyer GJ: Construct validity of Rorschach variables for alexithymia. Psychosomatics 2002;43:360–369.
25.
Taylor GJ, Bagby RM, Luminet O: Assessment of alexithymia: self-report and observer-rated measures; in Bar-On R, Parker JD (eds): The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 2000, pp 301–319.
26.
Perry JC: Problems and considerations in the valid assessment of personality disorders. Am J Psychiatry 1992;149:1645–1653.
27.
Trull TJ, Widiger TA, Useda JD, Holcomb J, Doan BT, Axelrod SR, Stern BL, Gershuny BS: A structured interview for the assessment of the five-factor model of personality. Psychol Assess 1998;10:229–240.
28.
Zimmerman M: Diagnosing personality disorders. A review of issues and research methods. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1994;51:225–245.
29.
Briggs SR, Cheek JM: The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. J Pers 1986;54:106–148.
30.
Clark LA, Watson D: Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol Assess 1995;7:309–319.
31.
Netemeyer RG, Bearden WO, Sharma S: Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, 2004.
32.
Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH: Psychometric Theory, ed. 3. New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc, 1994.
33.
Taylor GJ, Bagby RM: An overview of the alexithymia construct; in Bar-On R, Parker JD (eds): The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 2000, pp 40–67.
34.
Gorsuch RL: Factor Analysis. Hillside, Lawrence Erlbaum, 1983.
35.
StatSoft. Statistica for Windows. Tulsa, StatSoft, Inc, 2001.
36.
Cattell RB: The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behav Res 1966;1:245–276.
37.
Horn JL: A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 1965;30:179–185.
38.
O’Connor BP: SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and velicer’s MAP test. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 2000;32:396–402.
39.
Floyd FJ, Widaman KF: Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol Assess 1995;7:286–299.
40.
Deary IJ, Scott S, Wilson JA: Neuroticism, alexithymia and medically unexplained symptoms. Person Individ Dif 1997;22:551–564.
41.
Erni T, Lotscher K, Modestin J: Two-factor solution of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale confirmed. Psychopathology 1997;30:335–340.
42.
Ullman J: Structural equation modeling; in Tabachnik B, Fidell L (eds): Using Multivariate Statistics. New York, Harper Collins, 1996, pp 709–811.
43.
Byrne B: Structural Equation Modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, 1994.
44.
Hu L, Bentler PM: Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equation Model 1999;6:1–55.
45.
Kline RB: Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York, Guilford Press, 1998.
46.
Parker JD, Taylor GJ, Bagby RM: The 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale. 3. Reliability and factorial validity in a community population. J Psychosom Res 2003;55:269–275.
47.
Cortina JM: What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol 1993;78:98–104.
48.
Fleiss JL, Shrout PE: The effects of measurement errors on some multivariate procedures. Am J Public Health 1977;67:1188–1191.
49.
Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–174.
50.
Müller J, Buhner M, Ellgring H: Is there a reliable factorial structure in the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale? A comparison of factor models in clinical and normal adult samples. J Psychosom Res 2003;55:561–568.
51.
Blackburn R, Donnelly JP, Logan C, Renwick SJ: Convergent and discriminative validity of interview and questionnaire measures of personality disorder in mentally disordered offenders: a multitrait-multimethod analysis using confirmatory factor analysis. J Personal Disord 2004;18:129–150.
52.
Marty P, de M’Uzan M: La ‘pensée opératoire’. Rev Fr Psychanal 1963;27:1345–1356.
© 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel
2005
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.