The Observer Alexithymia Scale: A Reliable and Valid Alternative for Alexithymia Measurement?

Abstract

In this study, we evaluated the reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the Observer Alexithymia Scale (OAS; Haviland, Warren, & Riggs, 2000) while addressing shortcomings of earlier research. Internal consistency and test–retest reliability were found to be adequate, whereas interrater reliability was insufficient. The original five-factor model (Distant, Uninsightful, Somatizing, Humorless, Rigid) with item parcels showed excellent fit, indicating adequate translation. Alternative models were tested to overcome problems with the parcel method, and all showed poor fit. OAS total scores correlated .23 with the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 1994; Bagby, Taylor, & Parker, 1994) and .50 with the Toronto Structured Interview for Alexithymia (Bagby, Taylor, Parker, & Dickens, 2006). These problematic results on validity compromise the use of the OAS as an alexithymia measure.

Notes

^a N = 201.

^b N = 264.

^c N = 211.

^d N = 31.

^a Clinical sample: N = 201; nonclinical sample: N = 264.

^a Item was removed from the scale it belonged to.

^a The eigenvalues are for the sample data and for the 95th percentile from the 100 randomly generated data sets.

^b Clinical sample: N = 201.

^a Eigenvalus are for the sample data and for the 95th percentile from the 100 randomly generated data sets.

^b Nonclinical sample: N = 264.

^a N = 196.

^b N = 50.

∗ p <.05.

∗∗ p <.01.