ABSTRACT
Alexithymia has been difficult to operationalize reliably. Nevertheless, the clinical hallmarks of this phenomenon suggest methods of investigation. Early methods of alexithymia research focused on the global collection of alexithymia-associated deficits. The Beth Israel Psychosomatic Questionnaire (BIPQ) and the Schalling-Sifneos Scale (SSS) were early interviewer- and self-rated alexithymia measures exemplifying this approach. An alternative approach has been to find items from the MMP1 that correlate with the BIPQ and SSS. Groups from Denver and Irvine developed MMPI Alexithymia Scales based on correlations with the BIPQ and SSS, respectively (Kleiger and Kinsman, 1980; Shipko and Noviello, 1984). Taylor and Doody, (1985) took items from the SSS and other relevant self-report measures to develop the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS). Transcript analysis methods have also been developed, both in monadic and dyadic settings, to quantify the verbal production of affect (von Rad and Lolas, 1982; Taylor and Doody, 1985). With the transcript analysis methods in mind, we modified a previously existing scale to produce a structured interview, the Alexithymia Provoked Response Questionnaire (APRQ) (J. Krystal, Giller, and Ciccheti, 1986). The APRQ utilizes questions to elicit differentiated affect, which is transcribed and rated blindly according to a simplified transcript analysis method. From another perspective, a group in Montreal focused on deficits in symbolic function rather than affective impairment. Based on anthropological theory, they produced a Scored Archetypal Test with Nine Elements (SAT9) (Cohen, Demers-Desrosiers, and Catchlove, 1983; Demers-Desrosiers et al., 1983).
