修改不良童年经历问卷:持续方法是否能更好地预测生命历程结果?

IF 2 Q2 FAMILY STUDIES
Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma Pub Date : 2025-03-14 eCollection Date: 2025-09-01 DOI:10.1007/s40653-025-00697-y
Sarah Beth Bell, Sydney Wyatt, Madison Bickle, Lana Mnajjed, Anna Shadid, Ayah Saleh
{"title":"修改不良童年经历问卷:持续方法是否能更好地预测生命历程结果?","authors":"Sarah Beth Bell, Sydney Wyatt, Madison Bickle, Lana Mnajjed, Anna Shadid, Ayah Saleh","doi":"10.1007/s40653-025-00697-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the past 20 years, childhood trauma has often been measured by the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) scale. This cumulative risk scale asks whether 10 specific adverse experiences occurred before the age of 18, with higher scores indicating higher risk of negative biopsychosocial outcomes in adulthood. Although valuable, this binary approach may not provide rich enough information to identify those at risk for negative health and psychological outcomes. In this study, we developed a scale measuring the magnitude of adverse childhood experiences as well as a scale measuring the perceived impact of adverse childhood experiences. We compared these scales with the traditional ACEs scale to determine which of the three was most closely correlated with general health, self-esteem, aggressive behavior, social pain, social support, post-traumatic stress disorder, and loneliness. The first study population was drawn from a snowball community sample of 208 participants with an average ACE score of 3.83 (<i>SD</i> = 2.79). The second study population was a US nationally representative online sample of 318 participants from Prolific Academic with an average ACE score of 3.13 (<i>SD</i> = 2.36). In both studies, we found the three scales to be equally predictive of all seven outcome variables. Results suggest the traditional ACEs scale may be sufficient for identifying people experiencing higher levels of trauma. However, both of our participant samples had higher levels of ACEs than the US national average, indicating that more research would be needed to determine if this finding generalizes to populations with lower levels of adverse childhood experiences.</p>","PeriodicalId":44763,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma","volume":"18 3","pages":"637-651"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12433379/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Modifying the Adverse Childhood Experiences Questionnaire: Does a Continuous Approach Better Predict Life Course Outcomes?\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Beth Bell, Sydney Wyatt, Madison Bickle, Lana Mnajjed, Anna Shadid, Ayah Saleh\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40653-025-00697-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In the past 20 years, childhood trauma has often been measured by the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) scale. This cumulative risk scale asks whether 10 specific adverse experiences occurred before the age of 18, with higher scores indicating higher risk of negative biopsychosocial outcomes in adulthood. Although valuable, this binary approach may not provide rich enough information to identify those at risk for negative health and psychological outcomes. In this study, we developed a scale measuring the magnitude of adverse childhood experiences as well as a scale measuring the perceived impact of adverse childhood experiences. We compared these scales with the traditional ACEs scale to determine which of the three was most closely correlated with general health, self-esteem, aggressive behavior, social pain, social support, post-traumatic stress disorder, and loneliness. The first study population was drawn from a snowball community sample of 208 participants with an average ACE score of 3.83 (<i>SD</i> = 2.79). The second study population was a US nationally representative online sample of 318 participants from Prolific Academic with an average ACE score of 3.13 (<i>SD</i> = 2.36). In both studies, we found the three scales to be equally predictive of all seven outcome variables. Results suggest the traditional ACEs scale may be sufficient for identifying people experiencing higher levels of trauma. However, both of our participant samples had higher levels of ACEs than the US national average, indicating that more research would be needed to determine if this finding generalizes to populations with lower levels of adverse childhood experiences.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44763,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma\",\"volume\":\"18 3\",\"pages\":\"637-651\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12433379/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-025-00697-y\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/9/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"FAMILY STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-025-00697-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去的20年里,儿童创伤通常用不良童年经历(ace)量表来衡量。这个累积风险量表询问在18岁之前是否发生过10次特定的不良经历,得分越高表明成年后出现负面生物心理社会结果的风险越高。虽然这种二元方法很有价值,但可能无法提供足够丰富的信息,以确定那些有负面健康和心理后果风险的人。在这项研究中,我们开发了一个测量童年不良经历的程度的量表,以及测量童年不良经历的感知影响的量表。我们将这些量表与传统的ace量表进行比较,以确定三者中哪一个与一般健康、自尊、攻击行为、社会痛苦、社会支持、创伤后应激障碍和孤独感最密切相关。第一个研究人群是从一个雪球社区样本中抽取的208名参与者,平均ACE得分为3.83 (SD = 2.79)。第二个研究人群是美国全国代表性的在线样本,来自多产学术的318名参与者,平均ACE分数为3.13 (SD = 2.36)。在这两项研究中,我们发现这三个量表对所有七个结果变量的预测都是一样的。结果表明,传统的ace量表可能足以识别经历较高程度创伤的人。然而,我们的两个参与者样本的ace水平都高于美国全国平均水平,这表明需要更多的研究来确定这一发现是否适用于童年不良经历水平较低的人群。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Modifying the Adverse Childhood Experiences Questionnaire: Does a Continuous Approach Better Predict Life Course Outcomes?

In the past 20 years, childhood trauma has often been measured by the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) scale. This cumulative risk scale asks whether 10 specific adverse experiences occurred before the age of 18, with higher scores indicating higher risk of negative biopsychosocial outcomes in adulthood. Although valuable, this binary approach may not provide rich enough information to identify those at risk for negative health and psychological outcomes. In this study, we developed a scale measuring the magnitude of adverse childhood experiences as well as a scale measuring the perceived impact of adverse childhood experiences. We compared these scales with the traditional ACEs scale to determine which of the three was most closely correlated with general health, self-esteem, aggressive behavior, social pain, social support, post-traumatic stress disorder, and loneliness. The first study population was drawn from a snowball community sample of 208 participants with an average ACE score of 3.83 (SD = 2.79). The second study population was a US nationally representative online sample of 318 participants from Prolific Academic with an average ACE score of 3.13 (SD = 2.36). In both studies, we found the three scales to be equally predictive of all seven outcome variables. Results suggest the traditional ACEs scale may be sufficient for identifying people experiencing higher levels of trauma. However, both of our participant samples had higher levels of ACEs than the US national average, indicating that more research would be needed to determine if this finding generalizes to populations with lower levels of adverse childhood experiences.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: Underpinned by a biopsychosocial approach, the Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma presents original research and prevention and treatment strategies for understanding and dealing with symptoms and disorders related to the psychological effects of trauma experienced by children and adolescents during childhood and where the impact of these experiences continues into adulthood. The journal also examines intervention models directed toward the individual, family, and community, new theoretical models and approaches, and public policy proposals and innovations. In addition, the journal promotes rigorous investigation and debate on the human capacity for agency, resilience and longer-term healing in the face of child and adolescent trauma. With a multidisciplinary approach that draws input from the psychological, medical, social work, sociological, public health, legal and education fields, the journal features research, intervention approaches and evidence-based programs, theoretical articles, specific review articles, brief reports and case studies, and commentaries on current and/or controversial topics. The journal also encourages submissions from less heard voices, for example in terms of geography, minority status or service user perspectives. Among the topics examined in the Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma: The effects of childhood maltreatment Loss, natural disasters, and political conflict Exposure to or victimization from family or community violence Racial, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation or class discrimination Physical injury, diseases, and painful or debilitating medical treatments The impact of poverty, social deprivation and inequality Barriers and facilitators on pathways to recovery The Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma is an important resource for practitioners, policymakers, researchers, and academics whose work is centered on children exposed to traumatic events and adults exposed to traumatic events as children.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信