Exploring false negatives in self-reported trauma exposure status.

IF 2.7 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
M Shae Nester, Myranda H Cook, Cameron P Pugach, Blair E Wisco
{"title":"Exploring false negatives in self-reported trauma exposure status.","authors":"M Shae Nester, Myranda H Cook, Cameron P Pugach, Blair E Wisco","doi":"10.1037/tra0001635","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Trauma exposure is often assessed using checklists such as the Life Events Checklist for <i>DSM-5</i> (LEC-5; Weathers et al., 2013b). When participants endorse multiple events, respondents are asked to identify a single, worst event (i.e., index event). Recent work indicates that the \"worst event\" method leads to a concerning number of false negatives. The purpose of the current study was to replicate previous findings of false negatives and extend them by examining characteristics associated with false negatives, such as trauma type, means of exposure, recency of trauma, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom severity.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Adults (<i>n</i> = 476) provided data on trauma history assessed using a revised version of the LEC-5 that asked participants to provide follow-up information for each traumatic event endorsed. Participants also provided demographic data and completed the PTSD Checklist for <i>DSM-5.</i> Results: Two hundred thirty-four participants (49.16%) reported a worst event that met the <i>DSM-5</i> definition of Criterion A trauma (\"primary Criterion A\" group). However, of the 242 participants who did not, 138 participants (57.02%, or 28.99% of the total sample) reported a secondary event that did meet Criterion A (\"secondary Criterion A\" group). The secondary Criterion A group most commonly reported serious life-threatening illnesses/injuries and \"other\" stressful life experiences as their index trauma that did not fulfill Criterion A. Participants in the primary and secondary Criterion A groups reported similar levels of PTSD symptoms. No differences were observed in means of exposure and recency of index trauma between the Criterion A groups.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Findings raise questions regarding the efficiency and accuracy of the worst event method to determine trauma exposure status via self-report. Researchers should consider alternative methods for assessing trauma exposure rather than relying on the worst event scoring method. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20982,"journal":{"name":"Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy","volume":" ","pages":"1409-1415"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001635","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Trauma exposure is often assessed using checklists such as the Life Events Checklist for DSM-5 (LEC-5; Weathers et al., 2013b). When participants endorse multiple events, respondents are asked to identify a single, worst event (i.e., index event). Recent work indicates that the "worst event" method leads to a concerning number of false negatives. The purpose of the current study was to replicate previous findings of false negatives and extend them by examining characteristics associated with false negatives, such as trauma type, means of exposure, recency of trauma, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom severity.

Method: Adults (n = 476) provided data on trauma history assessed using a revised version of the LEC-5 that asked participants to provide follow-up information for each traumatic event endorsed. Participants also provided demographic data and completed the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5. Results: Two hundred thirty-four participants (49.16%) reported a worst event that met the DSM-5 definition of Criterion A trauma ("primary Criterion A" group). However, of the 242 participants who did not, 138 participants (57.02%, or 28.99% of the total sample) reported a secondary event that did meet Criterion A ("secondary Criterion A" group). The secondary Criterion A group most commonly reported serious life-threatening illnesses/injuries and "other" stressful life experiences as their index trauma that did not fulfill Criterion A. Participants in the primary and secondary Criterion A groups reported similar levels of PTSD symptoms. No differences were observed in means of exposure and recency of index trauma between the Criterion A groups.

Discussion: Findings raise questions regarding the efficiency and accuracy of the worst event method to determine trauma exposure status via self-report. Researchers should consider alternative methods for assessing trauma exposure rather than relying on the worst event scoring method. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

探索自我报告的创伤暴露状况中的假阴性。
简介创伤暴露通常使用核对表进行评估,例如 DSM-5 生命事件核对表(LEC-5;Weathers 等人,2013b)。当参与者认可多个事件时,受访者会被要求确定一个最严重的事件(即指数事件)。最近的研究表明,"最坏事件 "法会导致一定数量的假阴性。本研究的目的是通过研究与假阴性相关的特征,如创伤类型、暴露方式、创伤发生的时间以及创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)症状的严重程度,来重复之前关于假阴性的研究结果,并对其进行扩展:方法:成人(n = 476)使用修订版的 LEC-5 提供创伤史评估数据,要求参与者为认可的每个创伤事件提供后续信息。参与者还提供了人口统计学数据,并完成了 DSM-5 的创伤后应激障碍核对表。结果:234名参与者(49.16%)报告了符合DSM-5标准A创伤定义的最严重事件("主要标准A "组)。然而,在 242 名未符合标准 A 的参与者中,有 138 名参与者(占样本总数的 57.02%,即 28.99%)报告了符合标准 A 的次要事件("次要标准 A "组)。次要标准 A 组最常报告的是危及生命的严重疾病/伤害和 "其他 "紧张的生活经历,这些都是不符合标准 A 的创伤。标准 A 组与标准 A 组之间在指数创伤的暴露程度和复发程度上没有差异:讨论:研究结果对通过自我报告确定创伤暴露状况的最严重事件法的效率和准确性提出了质疑。研究人员应考虑采用其他方法来评估创伤暴露情况,而不是依赖最坏事件评分法。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.20
自引率
3.20%
发文量
427
期刊介绍: Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy publishes empirical research on the psychological effects of trauma. The journal is intended to be a forum for an interdisciplinary discussion on trauma, blending science, theory, practice, and policy. The journal publishes empirical research on a wide range of trauma-related topics, including: -Psychological treatments and effects -Promotion of education about effects of and treatment for trauma -Assessment and diagnosis of trauma -Pathophysiology of trauma reactions -Health services (delivery of services to trauma populations) -Epidemiological studies and risk factor studies -Neuroimaging studies -Trauma and cultural competence
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信