{"title":"Identifying traumatization in young children through structured play: validation of the Odense Child Trauma Screening (OCTS) in Lithuania.","authors":"Paulina Zelviene, Odeta Gelezelyte, Agniete Kairyte, Ask Elklit, Sille Schandorph Løkkegaard, Evaldas Kazlauskas","doi":"10.1080/20008066.2025.2474373","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> There is a need for valid methods to evaluate young children's (4-8 years) psychological difficulties related to traumatic experiences. The Odense Child Trauma Screening (OCTS), developed by Danish researchers, is a play-based story stem assessment tool developed to screen for indicators of traumatization in young children. Just a few studies of the OCTS have been published so far.<b>Objective:</b> The current study aimed to test the reliability and convergent validity of the OCTS in the Lithuanian community and risk subsamples of young children aged 4-8 years.<b>Method:</b> The total sample consisted of 209 participants (58.9% girls) from the community (47.4%) and risk (52.6%) subsamples, <i>M</i>age = 6.29 (<i>SD </i>= 1.48). All children were screened with the OCTS, and caregivers completed self-report questionnaires: demographics, the Child and Adolescent Trauma Screen-Caregiver (CATS-C), and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ).<b>Results:</b> The data suggests that the OCTS has good inter-rater reliability. The OCTS, SDQ, and CATS-C scores were significantly higher in the risk subsample, with small to large effect sizes. Boys and younger children (3-4-year-olds) scored higher on the OCTS. Out of all the OCTS stories, the Burnt hand story had significant correlation coefficients with all the CATS-C PTSD symptoms.<b>Conclusions:</b> The study provides initial information about the reliability and the validity of the OCTS and calls for further exploration of this instrument. There were also variations in scores between the Lithuanian data and an earlier study of the Danish sample. Future studies on the OCTS would benefit from further cross-cultural, reliability and the validity examination.</p>","PeriodicalId":12055,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychotraumatology","volume":"16 1","pages":"2474373"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11894742/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychotraumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20008066.2025.2474373","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: There is a need for valid methods to evaluate young children's (4-8 years) psychological difficulties related to traumatic experiences. The Odense Child Trauma Screening (OCTS), developed by Danish researchers, is a play-based story stem assessment tool developed to screen for indicators of traumatization in young children. Just a few studies of the OCTS have been published so far.Objective: The current study aimed to test the reliability and convergent validity of the OCTS in the Lithuanian community and risk subsamples of young children aged 4-8 years.Method: The total sample consisted of 209 participants (58.9% girls) from the community (47.4%) and risk (52.6%) subsamples, Mage = 6.29 (SD = 1.48). All children were screened with the OCTS, and caregivers completed self-report questionnaires: demographics, the Child and Adolescent Trauma Screen-Caregiver (CATS-C), and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ).Results: The data suggests that the OCTS has good inter-rater reliability. The OCTS, SDQ, and CATS-C scores were significantly higher in the risk subsample, with small to large effect sizes. Boys and younger children (3-4-year-olds) scored higher on the OCTS. Out of all the OCTS stories, the Burnt hand story had significant correlation coefficients with all the CATS-C PTSD symptoms.Conclusions: The study provides initial information about the reliability and the validity of the OCTS and calls for further exploration of this instrument. There were also variations in scores between the Lithuanian data and an earlier study of the Danish sample. Future studies on the OCTS would benefit from further cross-cultural, reliability and the validity examination.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Psychotraumatology (EJPT) is a peer-reviewed open access interdisciplinary journal owned by the European Society of Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS). The European Journal of Psychotraumatology (EJPT) aims to engage scholars, clinicians and researchers in the vital issues of how to understand, prevent and treat the consequences of stress and trauma, including but not limited to, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depressive disorders, substance abuse, burnout, and neurobiological or physical consequences, using the latest research or clinical experience in these areas. The journal shares ESTSS’ mission to advance and disseminate scientific knowledge about traumatic stress. Papers may address individual events, repeated or chronic (complex) trauma, large scale disasters, or violence. Being open access, the European Journal of Psychotraumatology is also evidence of ESTSS’ stand on free accessibility of research publications to a wider community via the web. The European Journal of Psychotraumatology seeks to attract contributions from academics and practitioners from diverse professional backgrounds, including, but not restricted to, those in mental health, social sciences, and health and welfare services. Contributions from outside Europe are welcome. The journal welcomes original basic and clinical research articles that consolidate and expand the theoretical and professional basis of the field of traumatic stress; Review articles including meta-analyses; short communications presenting new ideas or early-stage promising research; study protocols that describe proposed or ongoing research; case reports examining a single individual or event in a real‑life context; clinical practice papers sharing experience from the clinic; letters to the Editor debating articles already published in the Journal; inaugural Lectures; conference abstracts and book reviews. Both quantitative and qualitative research is welcome.