Introduction
Alexithymia is a multidimensional trait characterised by a set of emotion-processing deficits: difficulty identifying one’s own feelings (DIF), difficulty describing feelings (DDF) and an externally orientated thinking (EOT) style that focuses less on internal emotional states.1 The trait is normally distributed in the general population, with the prevalence of alexithymia being approximately 10%.2 Individuals with high levels of alexithymia have impairments in emotion regulation and coping strategies,3 as well as functional alterations in brain regions associated with self-awareness, cognitive function and emotional processing,4 consequently increasing the risk of psychopathology.5 6 Alexithymia has also been found to commonly co-occur with a range of psychiatric conditions, including affective, autism spectrum and personality disorders,7 8 and is established as a key transdiagnostic risk factor.9 Therefore, alexithymia is an important aspect in both clinical and non-clinical contexts, and valid and comprehensive assessment tools are needed.
Alexithymia is commonly assessed via self-report questionnaires, with the most widely used measure since the 1990s being the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20).10 The TAS-20 remains a robust measure that continues to contribute to the alexithymia field, with items designed to assess DIF, DDF and EOT. However, several psychometric or conceptual limitations have been noted, prompting the development of new measures. Primarily, the TAS-20 EOT items have low reliability and factor loadings, and the original authors of the scale have recommended against deriving subscales from the TAS-20. Instead, the authors recommended using only the total scale score as an overall marker of alexithymia.11 This limits the use of the TAS-20 because researchers increasingly seek to explore alexithymia at the facet (ie, subscale) level.12 Moreover, in the broader emotion field, it is recognised that emotional constructs can function differently across negative and positive emotions, thus requiring valence-specific assessments. However, the TAS-20 does not allow for the assessment of any alexithymia facets in terms of positive emotions.12
To address these limitations, Preece et al introduced the Perth Alexithymia Questionnaire (PAQ) in 2018. Originally developed in English, the PAQ contains 24 items and was designed to enable more detailed facet-level and valence-specific assessments across negative and positive emotions. It has five subscales, namely: negative-difficulty identifying feelings (N-DIF; four items, for example, When I’m feeling bad, I get confused about what emotion it is), positive-difficulty identifying feelings (P-DIF; four items, for example, When I’m feeling good, I get confused about what emotion it is), negative-difficulty describing feelings (N-DDF; four items, for example, When something bad happens, it’s hard for me to put into words how I’m feeling), positive-difficulty describing feelings (P-DDF; four items, for example, When something good happens, it’s hard for me to put into words how I’m feeling) and general-externally orientated thinking (G-EOT; eight items, for example, I don’t pay attention to my emotions). These subscales can also be summed into a total score as an overall marker of alexithymia.12 A five-factor model, corresponding to the intended five-subscale structure (online supplemental figure 1), has been supported by the results of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) across a range of clinical and non-clinical groups.3 12 The PAQ has also consistently demonstrated good to excellent internal consistency at the subscale and composite score levels, with Cronbach’s alphas between 0.85 and 0.96.3 12–14 Good concurrent and discriminant validity has been established with markers of depression, anxiety and emotion regulation.12 14 The PAQ also highly correlates with other alexithymia measures like the TAS-20.13 Supporting the utility of the valence distinction for DIF and DDF within the PAQ, participants usually report more difficulties processing their negative emotions than their positive emotions.12 15
Cross-cultural validity is a critical consideration in the development of a questionnaire, especially for use across different cultures. So far, the PAQ has demonstrated robust performance in this regard, with the five-factor model and good psychometric indices reported across English,12 Farsi15 and Polish14 versions. Although the psychometric properties of the PAQ have been examined in an Asian culture (Singapore), the questionnaire applied to the sample was the English version.13 To date, there is no published Chinese version of the PAQ, and the psychometrics and applications of the PAQ have not been evaluated in a Chinese context.
Therefore, our purpose in this paper is to introduce the first Chinese version of the PAQ and evaluate its psychometrics and clinical applications across two studies. In Study 1, we aimed to evaluate the Chinese PAQ’s factor structure, internal and 4-week test-retest reliability, and its convergent, concurrent and discriminant validity in a large general population sample. Based on past work across cultures,13 we anticipated that the five-factor structure would suit the Chinese PAQ with good reliability and validity. In Study 2, we sought to examine the clinical utility of the Chinese PAQ in participants with major depressive disorder (MDD) and subclinical depression. Subclinical depression is an episode of significant depressive symptoms that does not meet the diagnostic criteria for MDD. It is often considered an early stage or precursor of MDD,16 and individuals with subclinical depression have been found to be at higher risk of developing MDD.16 The investigation of subclinical depression might provide further insights on the links between alexithymia and different levels of depressive symptoms. Because alexithymia is an established risk factor for depression,9 we anticipated that the MDD group and the subclinical depression group may have higher PAQ scores than their matched controls.