Evaluation of the psychometric properties of trauma history measures: Assessment of reliability and validity.

IF 2.7 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Julia Johnston, Jennifer Moore, Donncha Hanna, David Curran, Julie-Ann Jordan, Ciaran Shannon, Kevin F W Dyer
{"title":"Evaluation of the psychometric properties of trauma history measures: Assessment of reliability and validity.","authors":"Julia Johnston, Jennifer Moore, Donncha Hanna, David Curran, Julie-Ann Jordan, Ciaran Shannon, Kevin F W Dyer","doi":"10.1037/tra0001854","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Psychological trauma is a pervasive, influential antecedent in a variety of mental health presentations; however, the comparative reliability and validity of long-standing self-report trauma history batteries remain unclear despite recent developments in trauma assessment. The present study employed both clinical and nonclinical samples to conduct a range of psychometric analyses on three of the most commonly used \"legacy\" measures of psychological trauma history: Traumatic Life Events Questionnaire (TLEQ), Trauma History Questionnaire, and Traumatic Events Questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Criterion and convergent validity were assessed along with test-retest reliability and social desirability effects. Participants were a treatment-seeking sample of mental health patients (<i>N</i> = 79; age = 46.5; 26.0% female) and a student sample (<i>N</i> = 136; age = 21.0; 82.7% female).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Traumatic event scores on the measures correlated significantly with each other, indicating acceptable levels of convergent validity (<i>r</i> = .71-.82). Acceptable test-retest reliability was obtained in the student sample (intraclass correlation coefficients = .69-.78), despite several subscales exhibiting some temporal instability. Criterion validity produced a more complex picture. The TLEQ and Traumatic Events Questionnaire correlated significantly with posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in both samples, whereas the Trauma History Questionnaire did not correlate with posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in the student sample. All three batteries exhibited significant negative relationships with social desirability, indicating potential reporting bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, the TLEQ emerged as the most robust legacy measure of trauma history. Future studies should assess its psychometrics in comparison with the new generation of measures (i.e., Life Events Checklist, International Trauma Exposure Measure) to further the development of assessment tools in this area. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20982,"journal":{"name":"Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy","volume":" ","pages":"821-829"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","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/tra0001854","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Psychological trauma is a pervasive, influential antecedent in a variety of mental health presentations; however, the comparative reliability and validity of long-standing self-report trauma history batteries remain unclear despite recent developments in trauma assessment. The present study employed both clinical and nonclinical samples to conduct a range of psychometric analyses on three of the most commonly used "legacy" measures of psychological trauma history: Traumatic Life Events Questionnaire (TLEQ), Trauma History Questionnaire, and Traumatic Events Questionnaire.

Method: Criterion and convergent validity were assessed along with test-retest reliability and social desirability effects. Participants were a treatment-seeking sample of mental health patients (N = 79; age = 46.5; 26.0% female) and a student sample (N = 136; age = 21.0; 82.7% female).

Results: Traumatic event scores on the measures correlated significantly with each other, indicating acceptable levels of convergent validity (r = .71-.82). Acceptable test-retest reliability was obtained in the student sample (intraclass correlation coefficients = .69-.78), despite several subscales exhibiting some temporal instability. Criterion validity produced a more complex picture. The TLEQ and Traumatic Events Questionnaire correlated significantly with posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in both samples, whereas the Trauma History Questionnaire did not correlate with posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in the student sample. All three batteries exhibited significant negative relationships with social desirability, indicating potential reporting bias.

Conclusions: Overall, the TLEQ emerged as the most robust legacy measure of trauma history. Future studies should assess its psychometrics in comparison with the new generation of measures (i.e., Life Events Checklist, International Trauma Exposure Measure) to further the development of assessment tools in this area. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

创伤史测量的心理测量特性评估:信度和效度评估。
目的:心理创伤是各种心理健康表现中普遍存在的、有影响的前因;然而,尽管最近在创伤评估方面取得了进展,长期自我报告创伤史电池的相对可靠性和有效性仍然不清楚。本研究采用临床和非临床样本对三种最常用的心理创伤史“遗留”测量方法:创伤生活事件问卷(TLEQ)、创伤史问卷和创伤事件问卷进行了一系列的心理测量分析。方法:评价量表效度、收敛效度、重测信度和社会期望效应。参与者为寻求治疗的精神健康患者样本(N = 79;年龄= 46.5;26.0%女性)和学生样本(N = 136;年龄= 21.0;82.7%的女性)。结果:创伤性事件量表得分之间存在显著相关,表明可接受的收敛效度水平(r = 0.71 - 0.82)。在学生样本中获得了可接受的重测信度(类内相关系数= 0.69 - 0.78),尽管几个子量表显示出一些时间不稳定性。标准效度产生了一个更复杂的画面。在两个样本中,TLEQ和创伤事件问卷与创伤后应激障碍症状显著相关,而创伤史问卷与学生样本中的创伤后应激障碍症状不相关。所有三组都与社会期望表现出显著的负相关关系,表明潜在的报告偏差。结论:总的来说,TLEQ是创伤史的最可靠的遗留测量。未来的研究应该评估其心理测量学,并与新一代的测量方法(即生活事件清单,国际创伤暴露测量)进行比较,以进一步发展这一领域的评估工具。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 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