CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 84Psychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchMedicine, History, and Philosophy

Is alexithymia related to psychosomatic disorder and somatizing?

Cohen, Karen, Auld, Frank, Brooker, Harvey·1994·Journal of Psychosomatic Research
DOI 10.1016/0022-3999(94)90085-x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship among alexithymia (as measured by the Toronto Alexithymia Scale--TAS and the scored version of the Archetypal 9 Test--SAT9), the presence or absence of classical psychosomatic disease, and the experience and expression of physical signs and symptoms. Subjects included thirty-two physical signs and symptoms. Subjects included thirty-two in-patients on a psychosomatic medicine unit (somatizing group), thirty-one out-patients who presented to a psychology clinic (psychiatric group), and thirty-four dental patients (comparison group). All subjects completed the TAS, the SAT9, the Hypochondriasis scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI Hs), the Physical Malfunctioning subscale of the MMPI (MMPI Physm), the Somatic Complaints subscale of the MMPI (MMPI Somc), the Hypochondriasis and Denial scales of the Basic Personality Inventory (BPI Hs and BPI Dn), and a demographic questionnaire. Age was significantly correlated with some of the TAS subscales (p < 0.001). There was no significant differences in SAT9 or TAS scores among the three subject groups (SAT9 F(2, 87) = 1.88, p = 0.16; TAS F(2, 92) = 2.91, p = 0.06). MMPI Hs, MMPI Physm, MMPI Somc, BPI Hs could significantly predict TAS (R = 0.46, F(4, 89) = 6.06, p = 0.0002) but not SAT9 scores (R = 0.26, F(5, 84) = 1.54, p = 0.20). Neither TAS (F(2, 92) = 2.13, p = 0.12) or SAT9 (F(2, 87) = 0.095, p = 0.91) scores differed significantly between subjects grouped according to whether they had none, one, or two or more classical psychosomatic disorders.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0022-3999(94)90085-x

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cohen, K., Auld, F., & Brooker, H.
Affiliations
University of Windsor (CA)
Corresponding author
Cohen, Karen
Venue
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1994-02
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
119-127
ISSN
0022-3999 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/0022-3999(94)90085-x
OpenAlex
W1993938145
Cited by
84
References
28
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Psychosomatic Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Medicine, History, and Philosophy
Keywords
alexithymia, psychosomatic disorders, somatization, somatic symptoms, health anxiety, denial, Toronto Alexithymia Scale, psychiatric patients, dental patients, personality traits
MeSH terms
Adult, Affective Symptoms, Anxiety Disorders, Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, MMPI, Personality Inventory, Psychophysiologic Disorders, Risk Factors, Sick Role, Somatoform Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review