Laura Machlin, Margaret A. Sheridan, Angelina Pei‐Tzu Tsai, Katie A. McLaughlin
{"title":"研究综述:早期生活逆境和创伤评估--累积风险和维度方法","authors":"Laura Machlin, Margaret A. Sheridan, Angelina Pei‐Tzu Tsai, Katie A. McLaughlin","doi":"10.1111/jcpp.14170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this research review, we present approaches and recommendations for assessing early‐life adversity and childhood trauma aligned with two leading conceptual models of adversity: cumulative risk and dimensional models. We summarize the measurement implications of each conceptual model and common approaches for assessing early‐life adversity in studies utilizing each of these models. We consider other critical components in the assessment of early‐life adversity and trauma, including retrospective and prospective reporting, objective and subjective measurement, and caregiver and child reporting. Finally, we briefly summarize the existing interview and questionnaire measures that are widely used to assess early‐life adversity and trauma using both cumulative risk and dimensional approaches. This work suggests that there is greater heterogeneity in measures used to assess the dimensional model relative to those used to assess the cumulative risk model, which allows for more flexibility in the assessment of early‐life adversity. In addition, we observed that more detailed measures were available to assess experiences of threat compared to experiences of deprivation. Measures that assess adversity experiences in terms of frequency and severity across multiple dimensions of experience within a single measure are needed to facilitate consistent and reliable assessment of early‐life adversity and trauma, particularly when applying dimensional models.","PeriodicalId":187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Research Review: Assessment of early‐life adversity and trauma – cumulative risk and dimensional approaches\",\"authors\":\"Laura Machlin, Margaret A. Sheridan, Angelina Pei‐Tzu Tsai, Katie A. McLaughlin\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jcpp.14170\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this research review, we present approaches and recommendations for assessing early‐life adversity and childhood trauma aligned with two leading conceptual models of adversity: cumulative risk and dimensional models. We summarize the measurement implications of each conceptual model and common approaches for assessing early‐life adversity in studies utilizing each of these models. We consider other critical components in the assessment of early‐life adversity and trauma, including retrospective and prospective reporting, objective and subjective measurement, and caregiver and child reporting. Finally, we briefly summarize the existing interview and questionnaire measures that are widely used to assess early‐life adversity and trauma using both cumulative risk and dimensional approaches. This work suggests that there is greater heterogeneity in measures used to assess the dimensional model relative to those used to assess the cumulative risk model, which allows for more flexibility in the assessment of early‐life adversity. In addition, we observed that more detailed measures were available to assess experiences of threat compared to experiences of deprivation. Measures that assess adversity experiences in terms of frequency and severity across multiple dimensions of experience within a single measure are needed to facilitate consistent and reliable assessment of early‐life adversity and trauma, particularly when applying dimensional models.\",\"PeriodicalId\":187,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.14170\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.14170","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Research Review: Assessment of early‐life adversity and trauma – cumulative risk and dimensional approaches
In this research review, we present approaches and recommendations for assessing early‐life adversity and childhood trauma aligned with two leading conceptual models of adversity: cumulative risk and dimensional models. We summarize the measurement implications of each conceptual model and common approaches for assessing early‐life adversity in studies utilizing each of these models. We consider other critical components in the assessment of early‐life adversity and trauma, including retrospective and prospective reporting, objective and subjective measurement, and caregiver and child reporting. Finally, we briefly summarize the existing interview and questionnaire measures that are widely used to assess early‐life adversity and trauma using both cumulative risk and dimensional approaches. This work suggests that there is greater heterogeneity in measures used to assess the dimensional model relative to those used to assess the cumulative risk model, which allows for more flexibility in the assessment of early‐life adversity. In addition, we observed that more detailed measures were available to assess experiences of threat compared to experiences of deprivation. Measures that assess adversity experiences in terms of frequency and severity across multiple dimensions of experience within a single measure are needed to facilitate consistent and reliable assessment of early‐life adversity and trauma, particularly when applying dimensional models.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (JCPP) is a highly regarded international publication that focuses on the fields of child and adolescent psychology and psychiatry. It is recognized for publishing top-tier, clinically relevant research across various disciplines related to these areas. JCPP has a broad global readership and covers a diverse range of topics, including:
Epidemiology: Studies on the prevalence and distribution of mental health issues in children and adolescents.
Diagnosis: Research on the identification and classification of childhood disorders.
Treatments: Psychotherapeutic and psychopharmacological interventions for child and adolescent mental health.
Behavior and Cognition: Studies on the behavioral and cognitive aspects of childhood disorders.
Neuroscience and Neurobiology: Research on the neural and biological underpinnings of child mental health.
Genetics: Genetic factors contributing to the development of childhood disorders.
JCPP serves as a platform for integrating empirical research, clinical studies, and high-quality reviews from diverse perspectives, theoretical viewpoints, and disciplines. This interdisciplinary approach is a key feature of the journal, as it fosters a comprehensive understanding of child and adolescent mental health.
The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry is published 12 times a year and is affiliated with the Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health (ACAMH), which supports the journal's mission to advance knowledge and practice in the field of child and adolescent mental health.