Skip to main content
European Journal of Psychotraumatology logoLink to European Journal of Psychotraumatology
. 2016 Mar 30;7:10.3402/ejpt.v7.30062. doi: 10.3402/ejpt.v7.30062

Psychometric properties of the Trauma and Distress Scale, TADS, in an adult community sample in Finland

Raimo K R Salokangas 1,*,, Frauke Schultze-Lutter 2,, Paul Patterson 3, Heinrich Graf von Reventlow 4, Markus Heinimaa 1, Tiina From 1, Sinikka Luutonen 1,5, Juha Hankala 1, Mika Kotimäki 1, Lauri Tuominen 1
PMCID: PMC4816812  PMID: 27032511

Abstract

Background

There is increasing evidence that a history of childhood abuse and neglect is not uncommon among individuals who experience mental disorder and that childhood trauma experiences are associated with adult psychopathology. Although several interview and self-report instruments for retrospective trauma assessment have been developed, many focus on sexual abuse (SexAb) rather than on multiple types of trauma or adversity.

Methods

Within the European Prediction of Psychosis Study, the Trauma and Distress Scale (TADS) was developed as a new self-report assessment of multiple types of childhood trauma and distressing experiences. The TADS includes 43 items and, following previous measures including the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire, focuses on five core domains: emotional neglect (EmoNeg), emotional abuse (EmoAb), physical neglect (PhyNeg), physical abuse (PhyAb), and SexAb.

This study explores the psychometric properties of the TADS (internal consistency and concurrent validity) in 692 participants drawn from the general population who completed a mailed questionnaire, including the TADS, a depression self-report and questions on help-seeking for mental health problems. Inter-method reliability was examined in a random sample of 100 responders who were reassessed in telephone interviews.

Results

After minor revisions of PhyNeg and PhyAb, internal consistencies were good for TADS totals and the domain raw score sums. Intra-class coefficients for TADS total score and the five revised core domains were all good to excellent when compared to the interviewed TADS as a gold standard. In the concurrent validity analyses, the total TADS and its all core domains were significantly associated with depression and help-seeking for mental problems as proxy measures for traumatisation. In addition, robust cutoffs for the total TADS and its domains were calculated.

Conclusions

Our results suggest the TADS as a valid, reliable, and clinically useful instrument for assessing retrospectively reported childhood traumatisation.

Keywords: Childhood traumatic experiences, assessment, reliability, validity, general population


There is growing evidence that a history of childhood abuse and neglect is not uncommon among those who experience mental disorder (Iffland, Brähler, Neuner, Häuser, & Glaesmer, 2013; Read, Hammersley, & Rudegeair, 2007; Saed, Talat, & Saed, 2013; Schüssler-Fiorenza Rose, Xie, & Stineman, 2014), and several studies have indicated that childhood trauma experiences and adverse life events are associated with adult psychopathology including personality disorders, depression, anxiety, dissociative symptoms, substance abuse, suicidal behaviour, and psychosis (Briere, Hodges, & Godbout, 2010; Draijer & Langland, 1999; Ferguson & Dacey, 1997; Pine & Cohen, 2002; Salzman et al., 1993; Soloff, Lynch, & Kelly, 2002; Triffleman, Marmar, Delucchi, & Ronfeldt, 1995; Varese et al., 2012). Thus, adverse and traumatic childhood experiences are of great interest to psychiatry, and several interview and self-report instruments for their assessment have been developed (e.g., Bernstein et al., 1994; Bernstein, Ahluvalia, Pogge, & Handelsman, 1997; Bremner, Vermetten, & Mazure, 2000; Bremner, Bolus, & Mayer, 2007; Briere and Runtz, 1990; Felitti et al., 1998; Gallagher, Flye, Hurt, Stone, & Hull, 1989; Roy & Perry, 2004; Thabrew, De Sylva, & Romans, 2012). Yet, while many focus on sexual abuse (SexAb), relatively few assess multiple types of trauma or adversity, possibly because a consistent understanding and agreed definitions of differing types of trauma and their impact is still missing (Thabrew et al., 2012). A clinician-administered assessment (the Childhood Trauma Interview, Bernstein et al., 1994) resulted in the development of a self-report inventory the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) (Bernstein et al., 1997) that included childhood emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, and as well as emotional and physical neglect as core domains. Another self-report questionnaire, the Early Trauma Inventory–Self Report, assesses physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, as well as general traumas (Bremner et al., 2007). Emotional and physical abuse, emotional and physical neglect, and sexual abuse are generally regarded in the literature as five core childhood adversity domains (Burgermeister, 2007; Thabrew et al., 2012). A broader concept of adversity can include peer emotional abuse (EmoAb); peer bullying; witnessing violence against a parent or sibling; bereavement and other loss; parental mental illness; stigma and discrimination; and other traumatic events such as natural disasters (Kessler, Davis, & Kendler, 1997; Teicher & Parigger, 2015; Varese et al., 2012). Reliable reporting of the psychometric properties of retrospective childhood trauma measures is also frequently lacking (Burgermeister, 2007; Pietrini, Lelli, Verardi, Silvestri, & Faravelli, 2010; Roy & Perry, 2004; Thabrew et al., 2012). From self-report scales, psychometric properties of the CTQ (Bernstein et al., 1997) and the Early Trauma Inventory–Self Report (Bremner et al., 2007) have been established.

Within the European Prediction of Psychosis Study (EPOS; Klosterkötter et al., 2005), Patterson et al. (2002) developed a new self-report instrument, the Trauma And Distress Scale (TADS) to enable the assessment of a range of adverse childhood experiences in patients at clinical high risk of psychosis. Items for the TADS were initially selected from a comparison of several scales for the assessment of traumatic, adverse, and distressing childhood events or experiences including the CTQ (Bernstein et al., 1994) and the Child Abuse & Trauma Scale (Sanders & Becker-Lausen, 1995). Additional items were gathered from a review of common childhood adversity-related issues reported by clinical staff treating individuals in youth and adult mental health services in EPOS project centres. The aim was to agree a checklist of items describing core domains of childhood adversity, and for the scale to be feasible in both self-report and interview formats for working with high-risk clinical samples and additional comparative populations. To ensure adequate content validity and psychometric consistency (Michel, Pace, Edun, Sawhney, & Thomas, 2014; Streiner, 1993), frequency ratings employing a five-point Likert-scale focused on the five core domains: emotional neglect (EmoNeg) and emotional abuse (EmoAb), physical neglect by parents/caregivers (PhyNeg), physical abuse (PhyAb), and sexual abuse (SexAb) by non-specified offenders. Other items assess loss events, discrimination, bullying, and guilt, and two items represent a “lie scale.”

To examine other important psychometric properties of the TADS (Michel et al., 2014; Streiner, 1993), we examined (1) inter-method reliability between the self-rated and interviewed TADS and (2) internal consistency of the five TADS trauma domain sub-scales as a measure of reliability. In addition, employing “level of depression” and “help-seeking for mental health difficulties” as proxy measures for traumatisation in the broadest sense, we examined the concurrent validity of the TADS and developed domain-specific cutoffs, whilst also considering the impact of potentially confounding conditions such as age, gender, and education.

Methods

The ethical committee of the University of Turku and the Turku University Central Hospital approved the study protocol.

Sample

A random, age stratified sample of 2,080 citizens aged 18 years or more was drawn from the general population of the Varsinais-Suomi Health District of South-West Finland. The general sampling rate was 1/100, and, because of their low proportion in the population, 2/100 for people over 70 years. An extensive questionnaire battery was mailed in spring 2008 and re-mailed to non-responders in summer 2008. In the first round 545 (26.2%) and in the second round 147 (7.1%) subjects responded, thus one-third (N=692, 33.3%) of the sample returned the completed questionnaire. Response rates for females (41.5%) were higher than that for males (25.3%; Fisher exact: p<0.001). Mean age of responders (42.0±16.95 years) was slightly higher than that of non-responders (39.5±16.37 years; p=0.001).

In addition, a random sample of 100 responders were contacted, and items from the TADS were reassessed in a semi-structured telephone interview. The interviewers, three medical students, were blind to the questionnaire responses from the earlier completed TADS. The time period from return of the completed questionnaire to interview ranged from 2 to 4 weeks.

Assessments

The questionnaire battery included items on participants’ socio-demographic background and prior help-seeking for mental health problems from a psychiatric service as well as the TADS. Originally, the TADS was developed in English (Birmingham). Three other EPOS centres (Cologne, Amsterdam and Turku) translated it into their own native language. In Turku, the TADS was translated in Finnish by one of our study group (MH) and back-translated by a professional translator of English. Since the TADS was subsequently available in Finnish and as there was no other existing Finnish scale fit for the purpose of measuring childhood adversity, several research groups began to use it in various populations. Initially, we have selected a general population for the assessment of the TADS's basic psychometric properties. We have also planned to evaluate its properties in clinical samples.

The TADS includes 43 items (Supplementary file and Table 1) on childhood trauma and adversity rated for their frequency in a Likert format: 0=“never,” 1=“rarely,” 2=“sometimes,” 3=“often,” and 4=“almost always.” To control for possible response bias, questions were phrased both positively (high ratings indicative of adversity) and negatively (low ratings indicative of adversity). Thus ratings of negatively phrased items (r) require reversion before calculation of the total and five domain scores. Two items (18 and 27) rating exaggerated positive responses operated as a “lie scale” for the purposes of validity. Five TADS domain scores can be calculated by summing their five respective items: (1) EmoNeg (5r, 8r, 13r, 21r, 40r), (2) EmoAb (10, 12, 14, 26, 32), (3) PhyNeg (1r, 2, 4, 6, 31r), (4) PhyAb (9, 16, 17, 20, 24), and (5) SexAb (22, 25, 30, 33, 41) as well as the TADS total trauma score (sum of all five domain scores). In descriptive statistics, we also calculated the TADS total score for all 43 items. Proportion of missing data on individual items of the TADS was generally lower than 1% except for the PhyAb items 17 (2.6%) and 20 (1.0%), the EmoNeg item 21 (1.2%), and items 29 (1.9%; feeling singled-out) and 38 (1.0%; loss event).

The questionnaire battery also included the depression screening instrument DEPS (Salokangas, Poutanen, & Stengård, 1995) consisting of 10 questions rated on a Likert scale as: 0=“not at all,” 1=“to some extent,” 2=“rather much,” and 3=“very much”); their sum indicates number of depressive symptoms during the past month. In a sample of patients attending primary care (Salokangas et al., 1995) at a cutoff of >8, the DEPS revealed a sensitivity of 74% and a specificity 85% for clinical depression.

Data on previous psychiatric treatment (help-seeking) and DEPS was available from all but three of the 692 subjects.

Statistical analyses

Data were analysed using Statistical Programme for the Social Sciences (SPSS) v22.0. To calculate the inter-method reliability between self-report and interview, intra-class coefficients (ICC) were calculated for the raw score of each TADS item. In addition, each TADS item was dichotomised [0=0 (“never”) to 1 (“rarely”), and 1=2 (“sometimes”) to 4 (“almost always”)], reversed for negatively phrased items. Agreement for presence of adverse childhood experiences across questionnaire and interview was calculated by the overall concordance rate (CR) and additionally by Cohen's kappa (κ) statistic to control for effect of chance. ICC values of less than 0.40 indicate poor, 0.40–0.59 fair, 0.60–0.74 good, and 0.75–1.0 excellent agreement (Cicchetti, 1994). According to Burn, Pitchard, and Whay (2009), κ≥0.40 and CR≥75% are considered clinically useful. A disadvantage generally associated with use of κ is its dependence on the prevalence of an event (Byrt, Bishop, & Carlin, 1993); κ tends to decrease when a response/event is rare, even if the CR is high. In the absence of a satisfactory mathematical solution to this problem, we followed the approach for the appraisal of κ suggested by Burn and Weir (2011) and additionally calculated the prevalence index (PI) when information was contradictory, that is, when CR exceeded 75% but κ fell below 0.40. The PI reports values between −1 and 1, and is 0 when both responses are equally probable (i.e., their prevalence is 50%). With PI→∣1∣, the likelihood of an underestimation of κ increases, and more attention should be paid to CR.

With regard to the five core domains, both raw (range 0–20) and dichotomised (range 0–5) scores of their respective items were summed as a measure of severity of trauma and adversity in each domain, and ICCs were calculated. Following this, the domain severity scores were again dichotomised (0=0; 1=1–5) as an indicator of persons (“cases”) who rated ≥2 (“sometimes”) in ≥1 items of the respective domain and, thus, had suffered from some childhood adversity in this respect. To calculate the inter-method reliability of this binary score, CR, κ, and PI were calculated again.

To examine the internal consistency of domains, Cronbach's alphas (α) were calculated for sum scores of both original raw items and dichotomised items of the domain. For the evaluation of α the following rules were applied: >0.90=excellent, 0.80–0.89=good, 0.70–0.79=acceptable, 0.60–0.69=questionable, and ≤0.59=poor (George & Mallery, 2003).

Using current depression (DEPS>8) and help-seeking for mental problems as proxy measures of adverse experiences, we examined the concurrent validity of the TADS by cross-tabulating each of these two proxies with TADS domain “cases,” and diagnostic accuracy measures (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs)) were then calculated for TADS domain “cases.” LRs can guide the estimation of concurrent validity for the availability of interpretation guidelines (Jaeschke, Guyatt, & Sackett, 1994) that are missing for other accuracy measures that can only be interpreted by less reliable rules-of-thumb (Boyko, 1994; Jaeschke et al., 1994).

Results

Distribution and frequency of items and core domains

Frequencies of individual items are shown in Table 1 and descriptive statistics for TADS domain scores in Table 2.

Table 1.

TADS items: original (i.e., unrevised) score frequencies (in %), proportion of item scores ≥2 in the general population sample (N=692), and inter-method reliability of self-rating of “≥2” to gold-standard interview assessment (N=100)

Item-nr. Statement 0 never 1 rarely 2 sometimes 3 often 4 nearly always ICC (raw score) ≥2 CR for “≥2” κ for “≥2” PIa for “≥2”
1(r)3 When I was young, I felt safe and protected by someone 1.9 5.6 10.8 27.6 54.0 0.809 18.4 0.880 0.639
23 When I was young, I was often hungry 44.1 31.8 15.2 7.1 1.9 0.538 24.1 0.790 0.364 −0.090
3 I was bullied at school 28.9 36.1 24.4 7.1 3.5 0.802 35.0 0.750 0.457
43 I often wear ragged or dirty clothes to school 71.4 16.2 7.4 4.0 1.0 0.841 12.4 0.920 0.717
5(r)1 When I was young, I felt valued or important 3.9 9.8 17.5 33.8 35.0 0.829 31.2 0.840 0.620
63 My parents/caregivers were often drunk, stoned, or wasted 64.0 18.8 8.1 8.4 0.7 0.922 17.2 0.940 0.797
7 I have been bullied at work 65.3 23.6 8.1 2.3 0.7 0.918 11.1 0.910 0.657
8(r)1 My family was emotionally warm and loving 3.8 7.7 17.6 27.2 43.8 0.852 29.0 0.850 0.619
94 When I was young, I was hit so hard that it left marks, cuts, or bruises 82.1 9.8 4.6 2.9 0.6 0.865 8.1 0.960 0.811
102 I felt rejected by my parents/caregivers 66.5 15.5 10.4 5.6 2.0 0.804 18.1 0.880 0.611
11(r) When I was young, there was an adult I could confide in 7.2 11.4 9.0 22.9 49.5 0.803 27.6 0.840 0.574
122 When I was young, I was humiliated by people in my family 63.2 17.3 9.4 6.1 4.0 0.831 19.5 0.850 0.615
13(r)1 When I was young, my family looked after each other 2.7 6.6 13.3 28.5 48.8 0.809 22.7 0.900 0.688
142 I believe that I am a bad person 62.9 26.2 8.2 1.6 1.2 0.793 11.0 0.930 0.593
15 I believe that somebody died because of me 93.1 3.0 1.3 1.2 1.4 0.835 3.9 0.980 0.740
164 I have experienced serious physical assault 82.8 9.5 5.6 1.6 0.4 0.709 7.7 0.920 0.592
174 Adults noticed cuts, bruises, or marks from when I was beaten 94.9 2.6 1.4 0.3 0.7 0.084 2.5 0.950 0.025 0.010
18(r) My childhood was perfect 8.5 9.4 25.1 39.5 17.5 0.840 43.1 0.800 0.584
19 I am bothered by a very shameful secret 74.6 14.2 6.5 3.2 1.5 0.865 11.1 0.910 0.589
204 I think I was physically abused when I was young 83.4 7.7 4.8 3.2 1.0 0.865 9.0 0.920 0.670
21(r)1 I respect myself 2.2 4.0 16.8 36.3 40.8 0.634 23.0 0.870 0.457
225 When I was young, someone touched me or tried to make me touch them in a sexual way 89.0 6.8 3.0 1.0 0.1 0.795 4.2 0.960 0.646
23 I have had experiences that I feel very guilty about 46.7 36.4 12.1 3.9 0.9 0.635 16.9 0.840 0.243 0.020
244 I have been involved in life-threatening situations 64.7 20.8 12.0 2.5 0.0 0.788 14.5 0.850 0.542
255 I was forced to keep secrets about someone sexually interfering with me when I was young 97.0 1.4 0.9 0.1 0.6 0.902 1.6 0.980 0.658
262 When I was young, I felt hated by a member or members of my family 77.2 11.1 6.6 4.0 1.0 0.893 11.7 0.940 0.765
27(r) My family was the greatest ever 8.7 8.8 17.2 31.1 34.2 0.751 34.7 0.820 0.570
28 Other people have acted badly because of me 64.6 26.6 7.7 1.2 0.0 0.683 8.8 0.930 0.551
29 When I was young, I felt like the odd one out in my family 58.7 19.8 13.2 4.8 3.6 0.873 21.5 0.890 0.724
305 I have experienced sexual assault 95.8 2.3 1.4 0.3 0.1 0.815 1.9 0.990 0.795
31(r)3 If I needed treatment someone would always take me to see a doctor or nurse when I was young 3.8 4.5 7.2 16.5 68.1 0.671 15.5 0.880 0.557 −0.020
322 I feel that I was put down, criticised, and made to feel inferior when I was young 56.8 19.4 10.0 10.8 3.0 0.863 23.8 0.860 0.645
335 Someone sexually molested me when I was young 91.8 5.8 2.0 0.4 0.0 0.766 2.5 0.970 0.559
34 I feel responsible for harm and injury to another person 82.5 11.4 3.9 1.3 0.9 0.609 6.1 0.920 0.386 −0.020
35(r) When I was young, I had friends I could talk to about personal problems 10.1 13.7 14.6 31.9 29.6 0.763 38.4 0.800 0.576
36 I have experienced harassment/persecution from other ethnic groups 97.0 1.3 1.2 0.4 0.1 0.382 1.7 0.990 0.000 −0.010
37(r) I did well at school 1.4 6.9 31.2 33.2 27.2 0.742 39.6 0.780 0.490
38 I have experienced the loss of somebody who was very important to me 26.6 29.5 26.7 7.8 9.4 0.615 43.9 0.660 0.323 −0.120
39 I believe that I do not deserve to do well in life 67.0 20.3 9.7 2.5 0.6 0.623 12.7 0.890 0.304 −0.070
40(r)1 My family was supportive and encouraging when I was young 6.1 9.8 16.9 24.9 42.3 0.834 32.8 0.820 0.589
415 I believe that I was sexually used when I was young 94.5 2.7 1.9 0.7 0.1 0.936 2.7 1.000 1.000
42 I felt afraid of someone in my family 59.0 15.8 12.3 6.6 6.4 0.860 25.3 0.810 0.541
43(r) When I was young I could make friends easily 3.2 9.8 21.0 36.8 29.2 0.835 34.0 0.850 0.590
a

The prevalence index (PI) was only calculated if for Cohen's κ and the CR produced contradictory results according to their guidelines for clinical usefulness (Burn et al., 2009), that is, κ≥0.40 and CR≥75%.

(r) indicates items whose score was revised prior to creating the binary “≥2” score or calculating sum scores and intra-class coefficient (ICC).

1

item of EmoNeg

2

item of EmoAb

3

item of PhyNeg

4

item of PhyAb

5

item of SexAb.

Table 2.

TADS core domains: descriptive statistics and internal consistency by Cronbach's α (N=692), as well as construct validity of totals by the intra-class coefficient (ICC) and of at least any one domain item ≥2 by CR, κ, and PI (N=100)

TADS domains Mdn Mean SD Range ≥2a (%) αb αc ICCb self-ratinga (%) interviewa (%) ICCc CR κ PI
EmoNeg Emotional neglect (max. 20) 4.00 4.88 4.36 0–19 51.2 0.874 0.831 0.915 51.0 40.0 0.899 0.790 0.543 −0.090
EmoAb Emotional abuse (max. 20) 2.00 3.08 4.00 0–19 37.4 0.859 0.794 0.928 40.0 41.0 0.908 0.830 0.647 −0.190
PhyNegd Physical neglect (max. 20/16) 2.00 3.29 3.07 0–17 49.7 0.624 0.579 0.922 41.0 38.0 0.910 0.850 0.686 −0.210
PhyAbd Physical abuse (max. 20) 0.00 1.50 2.53 0–16 23.1 0.764 0.696 0.906 36.0 38.0 0.885 0.800 0.571 −0.260
SexAb Sexual abuse (max. 20) 0.00 0.50 1.76 0–16 5.5 0.885 0.849 0.875 7.0 9.0 0.937 0.960 0.729 −0.840
Total 1d Sum score of the 5 core domains (max. 100/96) 9.00 13.26 12.66 0–81 72.3 0.918 0.894 0.958 66.0 62.0 0.893 0.740 0.437 0.280
Total 2 Sum score of the 43-item scale (max. 172) 22.00 28.47 21.37 0–123 93.6 0.940 0.920 0.956 95.0 92.0 0.943 0.910 0.262 0.870
a

Proportion of subjects with any item score ≥2 in respective domain.

b

Based on sum of original raw items.

c

Based on sum of dichotomised “≥2” items.

d

The original domains PhyNeg and PhyAb were used in descriptive statistics and internal consistency (Cronbach's α), while PhyNegR and PhyAbR were used in construct validity (ICC, CR, κ and PI and related % in self- and interview-rating).

Over 70% of the general population subjects reported that they had experienced abuse or neglect at least sometimes (Table 2) with approximately 50% of the sample reporting emotional and physical neglect with the median score for EmoNeg (4) being twice as high as that for PhyNeg (2). Abuse was less frequent, with over 37% reporting EmoAb and 23% PhyAb at a level of “sometimes” or more frequently (Table 2). 5.5% reported experience of SexAb (Table 2), mostly by indicating that they were touched or had to touch someone else in a sexual way in their childhood (item 22: 4.1%, Table 1). The least frequent item with 1.6% endorsement of “sometimes” or more was from SexAb (item 25) referring to being forced as a child to keep SexAb a secret.

Internal consistency of the TADS and its five core domains

Internal consistency of the total TADS score of the five domains was 0.92 for sum of original raw items and 0.89 for sum of dichotomised items. Corresponding figures of the total TADS sum score of all 43 items were 0.94 and 0.92. Internal consistencies of the five domains, indicated by Cronbach's α and calculated for original raw items and for dichotomised items, were generally better for original raw items (Table 2). While internal consistency was good for EmoNeg, EmoAb, and SexAb, and acceptable for PhyAb, it was questionable for PhyNeg. When the two items with poor inter-method reliability of raw scores (Table 1) were excluded from PhyNeg (item 2) and PhyAb (item 17), respectively, internal consistency improved to 0.64 and 0.78 for original raw items and 0.60 and 0.72 for dichotomised items, respectively. When item 17 was replaced by item 42 (I was afraid of someone in my family), internal consistency of PhyAb was acceptable with Cronbach's α=0.79 for raw items and 0.73 for dichotomised items. Consequently, in further analyses of inter-method reliability and concurrent validity as well as normative data, the revised domains were used, that is, PhyNegR without item 2 and PhyAbR including item 42 instead of item 17.

Inter-method reliability of items and core domains

As illustrated in Fig. 1, the means scores of self-reported and interview-assessed original TADS items were almost identical (Fig. 1). In line with this, inter-method reliability values of items in terms of both raw (ICC) and dichotomised scores (CR and κ) were good to excellent, the only exceptions being items 2, 17, and 36 (Table 1). For item 2 (When I was young, I was often hungry), both the ICC (0.54) for the raw score and κ (0.36) for the dichotomised score were below acceptable levels. In addition, as the PI was −0.090, the CR of 79% cannot be regarded as providing a better estimate of the inter-method reliability of the binary score; consequently item 2 has to be regarded as having insufficient inter-method reliability. The same must be assumed for item 17 (Adults noticed cuts, bruises or marks from when I was beaten), and for item 36 (I have experienced harassment/persecution from other ethnic groups); both showed excellent CRs but only moderate ICCs and κs that had to be given priority in light of low PIs (Table 1). With regard to items 23, 31, 34, 38, and 39, good to excellent ICCs of raw scores indicated that these possess better inter-method reliability than their dichotomised version where κs were insufficient at low PIs (Table 1). Compared to the interview, the self-rating of raw scores tended to give an overestimation in the case of items 2, 23, and 39 and an underestimation only for item 38, while no clear tendency could be detected for items 17, 31, 34, and 36 (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Mean scores of TADS items by self-report and interview.

As regards the five revised core domains, ICCs of totals of both raw and dichotomised scores were all good to excellent (Table 2). Furthermore, all five domains appeared to hold some clinical utility for indicating the presence of any respective adversity when compared alongside the gold standard of an interview assessment (Table 2). This did not hold for either TADS totals (Table 2); however, where by comparison the presence of any adversity was overestimated.

Concurrent validity of the TADS and its core domains

To study the criterion validity in terms of the concurrent validity, we used presence of depression (DEPS score >8) and help-seeking from mental health services, respectively, as proxy measures of traumatisation in terms of a negative impact on mental health. In total 135 (19.6%) subjects scored >8 in the DEPS and 187 (27.1%) had sought help from a mental health service at some time in their life. For participants who had affirmed at least some experience of childhood adversity in the TADS domains and totals, depression and help-seeking were significantly more frequent at effect sizes of 0.18–0.33 and 0.14–0.30, respectively (Table 3), thus indicating good criterion validity of the TADS and all of its domains. Consistently, the effect of EmoNeg and EmoAb on the proxy measures “current depression” and “help-seeking,” were strongest, while the effect of PhyNeg was weakest (Table 3).

Table 3.

Relationship between reported adversity, depression, and help-seeking

Depressed (n=135) n (% of depressed) Not depressed (n=554) n (% of not depressed) χ2 (df=1), p; Cramer's V Help-seeking (n=187) n (% of help-seeking) Not help-seeking (n=502) n (% of not help-seeking) χ2 (df=1), p; Cramer's V
EmoNega (353 cases, 51.2%) 114 (84.4%) 239 (43.1%) 74.118, <0.001; 0.328 139 (74.3%) 215 (42.8%) 54.127, <0.001; 0.280
EmoAb (258 cases, 37.4%) 91 (67.4%) 167 (30.1%) 64.346, <0.001; 0.306 115 (61.5%) 143 (28.5%) 63.386, <0.001; 0.303
PhyNegRb (342 cases, 49.6%) 91 (67.4%) 251 (45.3%) 21.209, <0.001; 0.175 115 (61.5%) 228 (45.5%) 14.090, <0.001; 0.143
PhyAbR (159 cases, 23.1%) 60 (44.4%) 99 (17.9%) 43.183, <0.001; 0.250 73 (39.0%) 86 (17.1%) 36.831, <0.001; 0.231
SexAb (38 cases, 5.5%) 21 (15.5%) 17 (3.1%) 32.480, <0.001; 0.217 24 (12.8%) 14 (2.8%) 26.384, <0.001; 0.196
TADS total of domainsc (498 cases, 72.3%) 126 (93.3%) 372 (67.2%) 37.146, <0.001; 0.232 163 (87.2%) 336 (66.9%) 27.929, <0.001; 0.201
TADS total (645 cases, 93.6%) 132 (97.8%) 513 (92.6%) 4.869, 0.027; 0.084 186 (99.5%) 459 (91.4%) 14.699, <0.001; 0.146

Cramer's V: 0.1=small effect; 0.3=moderate effect; 0.5=large effect.

Cases for help-seeking cross-tabulation:

a

EmoNeg 354, 51.4%

b

PhyNegR 343, 49.8%

c

TADS total of domains 499, 72.4%.

Normative data

With regards to potential confounders of normative data, that is, age, gender and years of education, differential effects on the TADS domains or total caseness were detected for gender and education, while effects of age were unsystematic and did not allow examination of cutoff markers (Table 4). An effect of gender was detected for EmoAb and SexAb in favour of men who reported lower presence of any adversity in these domains as indicated by standardised residuals (SR) below −1.96, while EmoNeg, PhyNegR, and PhyAbR as well as the TADS domain total were negatively associated with years of education (Table 4). Marital status, likely confounded by other variables and thus not considered separately for normative data, suggested evidence of a greater likelihood of any kind of abuse in separated, divorced, or widowed participants (Table 4).

Table 4.

Association of socio-demographic parameters with TADS caseness, that is, scoring ≥2 in any one domain item

n % EmoNeg % cases (SR) EmoAb % cases (SR) PhyNegR % cases (SR) PhyAbR % cases (SR) SexAb % cases (SR) Total domains % cases (SR) TADS total % cases (SR)
Gender 692
 Men 260 37.6 52.7 (0.35) 29.6 (−2.06) 50.8 (0.24) 27.7 (1.53) 1.9 (−2.46) 75.4 (0.59) 95.8 (0.35)
 Women 432 62.4 50.2 (−0.27) 42.1 (1.60) 49.1 (−0.19) 20.4 (−1.19) 7.6 (1.90) 70.4 (−0.46) 92.4 (−0.28)
 χ2, df=1, p 0.393, ns 10.854, *** 0.187, ns 0.174, ns 10.218, *** 2.036, ns 3.166, ns
Age 692
 18–24 81 11.7 56.8 (0.71) 44.4 (1.03) 48.1 (−0.20) 18.5 (−0.86) 3.7 (−0.69) 79.0 (0.72) 93.8 (0.02)
 25–34 226 32.7 41.6 (−2.01) 25.7 (−2.89) 42.0 (−1.64) 15.5 (−2.39) 3.1 (−1.54) 61.5 (−1.90) 88.5 (−0.80)
 35–44 110 15.9 46.4 (−0.70) 36.4 (−0.18) 52.7 (0.45) 23.6 (0.11) 7.3 (0.80) 72.7 (0.06) 95.5 (0.20)
 45–54 86 12.4 65.1 (1.81) 48.8 (1.73) 57.0 (0.96) 34.9 (2.27) 9.3 (1.51) 80.2 (0.87) 97.7 (0.39)
 55–64 87 12.6 57.5 (0.82) 43.7 (0.95) 49.4 (0.04) 26.4 (0.64) 9.2 (1.47) 74.7 (0.27) 97.7 (0.39)
 65+ 102 14.7 55.9 (0.67) 44.1 (1.10) 58.8 (1.31) 30.4 (1.53) 3.9 (−0.68) 81.4 (1.08) 96.1 (0.25)
 χ2, df=5, p 19.320, * 23.292, *** 11.013, ns 18.658, * 8.858, ns 22.108, *** 16.438, **
Years of education 688
 ≤11 168 24.4 63.7 (2.24) 44.6 (1.51) 63.7 (2.54) 35.7 (3.45) 8.3 (1.65) 85.7 (2.03) 98.2 (0.62)
 12–15 299 43.5 52.8 (0.37) 36.5 (−0.30) 48.5 (−0.33) 21.4 (−0.56) 5.7 (0.23) 70.2 (−0.44) 93.3 (−0.05)
 ≥16 221 32.1 39.8 (−2.38) 33.5 (−0.97) 41.2 (−1.83) 15.4 (−2.35) 2.7 (−1.71) 65.2 (−1.26) 90.5 (−0.48)
 χ2, df=2, p 22.269, *** 5.317, ns 19.743, *** 23.025, *** 6.019, ns 21.398, *** 9.570, **
Marital status 688
 Single 136 19.8 55.1 (0.67) 41.2 (0.73) 41.2 (−1.39) 19.9 (−0.76) 5.1 (−0.19) 70.6 (−0.23) 93.4 (−0.03)
 Married 289 42.0 47.1 (−0.94) 32.9 (−1.25) 50.9 (0.31) 20.1 (−1.03) 3.5 (−1.49) 69.6 (−0.54) 93.8 (0.03)
 Cohabiting 169 24.6 47.9 (−0.58) 32.0 (−1.15) 51.5 (0.35) 18.9 (−1.09) 6.5 (0.55) 71.0 (−0.19) 91.7 (−0.25)
 Separated/divorced/widowed 94 13.7 62.8 (1.59) 55.3 (2.85) 54.3 (0.65) 43.6 (4.18) 10.6 (2.11) 85.1 (1.47) 96.8 (0.32)
 χ2, df=3, p 8.577, ns 18.402, *** 5.099, ns 26.328, *** 7.422, ns 9.115, ns 2.644, ns

ns p≥0.05

*

p<0.05

**

p<0.01

***

p<0.001 in χ2-test; for each parameter adjusted for multiple testing across the six TADS totals.

SR: standardised residuals; values >∣1.96∣ indicate significant cell number deviations at p>0.05.

In general, diagnostic accuracy measures of binary TADS caseness gave comparable figures for both proxy measures (Table 5). As expected, sensitivity for total of TADS domains and of total TADS scale were very high, but specificity low, especially for the total scale. Totals for TADS domains demonstrated high sensitivity but lower specificity to depressiveness. From the TADS domains, SexAb showed low sensitivity but high specificity for both depressiveness and help-seeking and moderate positive LR for depressiveness. Also PhyAbR showed quite low sensitivity but high specificity. For other TADS domains, sensitivity and specificity figures were relatively balanced.

Table 5.

Diagnostic accuracy of TADS caseness for depressiveness and help-seeking, respectively, as proxy measure of traumatisation

Sensitivity depression Specificity depression PPV depression NPV depression PLR depression NLR depression
TADS caseness (at least any one item of ≥2)
EmoNeg 0.844 0.569 0.323 0.938 1.958 0.274
EmoAb 0.674 0.699 0.353 0.898 2.239 0.466
PhyNegR 0.674 0.547 0.266 0.873 1.488 0.596
PhyAbR 0.444 0.821 0.377 0.858 2.487 0.676
SexAb 0.156 0.969 0.553 0.825 5.032 0.871
Total of domains 0.933 0.329 0.253 0.953 1.390 0.204
Total of scale 0.978 0.074 0.205 0.932 1.056 0.300
Sensitivity help-seeking Specificity help-seeking PPV help-seeking NPV help-seeking PLR help-seeking NLR help-seeking

TADS caseness (at least any one item of ≥2)
EmoNeg 0.743 0.572 0.393 0.857 1.736 0.449
EmoAb 0.615 0.715 0.446 0.833 2.159 0.538
PhyNegR 0.615 0.546 0.335 0.792 1.354 0.705
PhyAbR 0.390 0.829 0.459 0.785 2.279 0.736
SexAb 0.257 0.902 0.495 0.765 2.630 0.824
Total of domains 0.658 0.699 0.449 0.846 2.187 0.489
Total of scale 0.995 0.086 0.288 0.977 1.088 0.062

PPV=positive predictive value, NPV=negative predictive value, PLR=positive likelihood ratio (guidance for interpretation of the increase in the likelihood of event: >10=large and often conclusive; 5–10=moderate; 2–5=small; 1–2=minimal; 1=none), NLR=negative likelihood ratio (guidance for interpretation of the decrease in the likelihood of event: ≥0.5=minimal; 0.2–0.5=small; 0.1–0.2=moderate; <0.1=large and often conclusive).

In total, 102 (14.7%) subjects scored a maximum “4” on the “lie scale” items 18 and 27. However, Spearman's correlations between depression and TADS domains were very similar when the total sample (N=689) and the subsample without positive “lie scale” subjects (N=588) were compared: EmoAb: 0.438 versus 0.420, PhyAb: 0.262 versus 0.239, SexAb: 0.205 versus 0.190, EmoNeg: 0.431 versus 0.402, PhyNeg: 0.273 versus 0.248, TADS total: 0.451 versus 0.423. Therefore subjects who scored “4” in both items 18 and 27 were not excluded from analyses.

Discussion

Within the EPOS project, the TADS was developed as a brief self-report scale of childhood adversity and trauma covering several core domains as well as tapping into other aspects of a broad concept of adversity (Thabrew et al., 2012). Employing a large general population sample, the current study examined major psychometric properties of the TADS and possible normative data which is often lacking for similar measures (Burgermeister, 2007; Pietrini et al., 2010; Thabrew et al., 2012).

Reliability: internal consistency

With the exception of the PhyNeg sub-scale that displayed only borderline internal validity even after revision, all other trauma subscales exhibited acceptable or excellent internal consistency indicating that the TADS and its subscales reliably assess the target construct of retrospective “childhood trauma.”

Inter-method reliability

Inter-method reliability as measured between self-reported and interview-reported trauma scores was sufficiently high for individual items, subscales, and TADS totals with no indication of a general bias towards either an under- or over-reporting. There was, however some indication of better inter-method reliability for raw score based subscale and TADS totals compared to dichotomised scores (those having any one included item with a frequency of at least “sometimes”). While the ICCs of all raw score sums indicated excellent agreement, κ values of dichotomised domains and totals were poorer and fell below the threshold for clinical utility for totals.

Inter-method reliability was poor overall for three items (2, 17, and 36), two of which had originally been part of the physical neglect and abuse domains, respectively, and negatively affected their internal consistency. These were removed from the respective domains and in the case of PhyAbR, replaced by an item with excellent inter-method reliability. A further five items (23, 31, 34, 38, and 39) possessed better inter-method reliability for their raw scores compared with dichotomised scores. Finally, EmoNeg appeared to be over-reported by self-report compared to interview, hence self-reports should be treated with some caution for this scale.

Concurrent validity and normative data

Childhood adversity has frequently been associated with adult mental disorder, particularly depression (e.g., Fryers & Brugha, 2013; Kessler et al., 2010; Lindert et al., 2014), and so the DEPS screen positive cases and help-seeking for mental problems were used as proxy measures of the construct “traumatisation” in examining the TADS's concurrent validity and generation of norms. Effect sizes indicated small to moderate associations between proxy measures and TADS categories (caseness) that appeared to be quite robust. Because the relationship between childhood trauma and adult mental ill health is complex and significantly mediated by many interacting factors (Fryers & Brugha, 2013; Kessler et al., 2010), the small-to-moderate effect sizes suggest good concurrent validity of the TADS.

Using the same two proxies of clinically significant prior adversity as markers, TADS trauma domains and totals were assessed for their diagnostic relevance. We additionally examined the influence of age, gender and education to see if we could improve the population fit using different demographic norms (Michel et al., 2014). Education particularly seemed to relate to TADS scores and the inverse association appears supportive of research linking childhood adversities to impaired physical brain development (Bick & Nelson, 2016) as well as the impact on education (Font & Maguire-Jack, 2016) and studies linking education to poly-victimisation (e.g., Barker, Kerr, Dong, Wood & DeBeck, 2015; Horan & Widom, 2015; Min, Farkas, Minnes, & Singer, 2007).

Depression and help-seeking status also enabled an approximate comparison of diagnostic accuracy measures for TADS domain and total caseness. As expected, the total TADS (43 items) scale had very low specificity for proxy measures and therefore may not be suitable for detecting early traumatisation. Specifically for depressiveness, total TADS domains also demonstrated low specificity but higher specificity for help-seeking which is likely to be an indicator of a much wider range of psychiatric symptoms or disorders and thus indicates the instrument's clinical utility. Because of the low reported frequency of sexual abuse events, sensitivity for SexAb remained low, but its high specificity and moderate positive LR for depressiveness support the view that childhood sexual abuse is specifically related to clinical depression in adulthood (Lindert et al., 2014). However, with regard to specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and LRs in particular, the limited nature of depression and help-seeking as proxy measures of “traumatisation” in a general population sample has to be kept in mind.

Strengths and limitations

In addition to the good psychometric properties of the TADS indicated by the present results, some further strengths as well as limitations should be discussed. While the TADS data presented is from a large adult general population and primary care samples with broad age ranges, the high level of non-responders may limit the representativeness of results and might have biased the reporting of childhood adversity, depression, and help-seeking. Females and young adults were particularly over-represented among subjects. In addition, it must be noted that the Finnish population is very demographically homogenous (97% spoke the official native language Finnish/Swedish) and the proportion of non-Caucasian people is very low (under 1%). This fact clearly limits generalisation of the results to other countries with more multicultural populations.

Altogether 95% of participants affirmed at least one TADS item as having occurred “sometimes” or more often. Most frequent were reports of childhood and family “being perfect” and “the greatest ever,” respectively, of doing well at school, having trusted friends, and of having experienced the loss of an important person. None of these items are part of the five core domains, and, consequently, when only 24 domain items were considered, the hit rate reduced considerably. Figures for emotional (51.2%) and physical (49.7%) neglect and for emotional (37.4%) and physical (23.1%) abuse were considerably higher than in some other studies (Barbosa et al., 2014; Christoffersen, Armour, Lasgaard, Andersen, & Elklit, 2013; Kessler et al., 2010; Saed et al., 2013; Schüssler-Fiorenza Rose et al., 2014), while prevalence of SexAb (5.5%) was as frequent as in German (Iffland et al., 2013) and Brazilian population samples (Barbosa et al., 2014) but lower than in the Boston area study (Chiu et al., 2013) and higher than in the WHO study (Kessler et al., 2010). However, the use of different instruments and definitions of adversity impede direct comparisons between separate studies (Burgermeister, 2007; Thabrew et al., 2012). For example in the ACE study (Schüssler-Fiorenza Rose et al., 2014), the emotional abuse category included only one item with a description of adverse events (prevalence: 34%), while the TADS, for which the five emotional abuse items included also milder events, reported 51% prevalence. It is also possible that recent public and media discussions on childhood adverse experiences in Finnish society have increased reporting for milder adverse events or experiences. While the high reporting of prior adversity reported by this sample may indicate a questionnaire return bias, the rates of reported depression scores according to the DEPS of 20% and that of lifetime help-seeking of 27% is in line with the previous prevalence reports of mild-to-moderate self-reported depression symptoms of 14% in adults of the Finnish community sample (Koivumaa-Honkanen, Kaprio, Honkanen, Viinamäki, & Koskenvuo, 2004) and of help-seeking for mental health problems of 23% in young adults of a Swiss community sample (Schultze-Lutter, Michel, Ruhrmann, & Schimmelmann 2014). Thus, it is unlikely that a return bias towards more distressed individuals has driven the high reported rate of childhood adversity.

One limitation that is inherent to the construct of childhood adversity and trauma and consequently relates to all similar studies is the lack of a “gold standard” measure for the retrospective assessment of the complex construct “traumatisation.” Thus, when comparing the concurrent validity of adversity and trauma assessments, much depends on the quality of proxy measures of the construct. Based on consistent reports of a causal link between childhood adversities, traumatisation, and adult mental ill health (e.g., Fryers & Brugha, 2013; Kessler et al., 2010; Lindert et al., 2014), we had chosen a self-report measure of current depression and report of lifetime help-seeking for mental disorders that despite their differing time frames of reference led to impressively similar results. The proxy measures were limited in that only current depressiveness was assessed thus potentially excluding any earlier depressive episodes and help-seeking only from psychiatric services was assessed, yet help-seeking can involve other providers such as primary health services or indeed help might not be sought at all (Kaskeala, Sillanmäki, & Sourander, 2015). Future evaluations of the TADS might usefully employ measures of hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis dysregulation as a neurobiological marker and proxy measure of childhood traumatisation. The HPA axis is a major part of the neuroendocrine system that controls reactions to stress, involved in the neurobiology of many mental disorders (Baumeister, Lightman, & Pariante, 2014) and permanently modulated by early life stressors (Macrì, Zoratto, & Laviola, 2011). While exposure to mild or moderate stressors early in life has been shown to enhance HPA regulation and promote a lifelong resilience to stress, early-life exposure to extreme or prolonged stressors can induce a hyper- or hypo-reactive HPA axis and may contribute to lifelong vulnerability to stress (Flinn, Nepomnaschy, Muehlenbein, & Ponzi, 2011; Hinkelmann et al., 2013). Similarly, future studies of the concurrent validity of assessments of childhood trauma could also consider employing cortisol—in particular hair cortisol that reflects cumulative cortisol levels over long periods of time—as a measure of potential HPA axis dysfunction and thus a neurobiological proxy of traumatisation (Hostinar & Gunnar, 2013).

Conclusions and outlook

In relation to measuring the important role that early-life traumatisation plays in the development of adult mental health problems and disorders, many instruments have been developed based on face validity, with relatively few reporting psychometric properties (Burgermeister, 2007; Pietrini et al., 2010; Thabrew et al., 2012). Regarding the TADS and its five revised sub-scale domains, our results indicate good psychometric properties in terms of internal consistency, content, inter-method reliability, and concurrent validity for adults from a Finnish community sample. These findings require replication and our suggested cutoff markers for clinical significance and traumatisation, respectively, will need validation with independent samples such as clinical populations or in other regions employing different proxy measures of traumatisation (including neurobiological) and prospective studies. In addition, the test–retest reliability of the TADS and its applicability to younger samples should be reported. As regards the TADS's utility, it seems possible to improve this while retaining good content validity in terms of the five core domains of childhood trauma by employing only 24 of the measures items.

Overall, the TADS appears to be a useful instrument for the assessment of retrospectively reported childhood adversity and trauma beyond the contextual framework of its original development for the prediction of psychosis in clinical high-risk samples.

Supplementary Material

Psychometric properties of the Trauma and Distress Scale, TADS, in an adult community sample in Finland

Conflict interest and funding

There is no conflict of interest in the present study for any of the authors. The study was funded by Turku University Central Hospital (EVO funding). Dr. Patterson was partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) through the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care in the West Midlands (CLAHRC-WM). Professor Salokangas was partly funded by Oy H. Lundbeck Ab, Finland.

References

  1. Barbosa L.P, Quevedo L, da Silva G.D, Jansen K, Pinheiro R.T, Branco J, …. Da Silva R.A. Childhood trauma and suicide risk in a sample of young individuals aged 14–35 years in southern Brazil. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2014;38:1191–1196. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.02.008. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.02.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barker B, Kerr T, Dong H, Wood E, DeBeck K. High school incompletion and childhood maltreatment among street-involved young people in Vancouver, Canada. Health & Social Care in the Community. 2015 doi: 10.1111/hsc.12314. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baumeister D, Lightman S.L, Pariante C.M. The interface of stress and the HPA axis in behavioural phenotypes of mental illness. Current Topics in Behavioral Neuroscience. 2014;18:13–24. doi: 10.1007/7854_2014_304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bernstein D.P, Ahluvalia T, Pogge D, Handelsman L. Validity of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire in an adolescent psychiatric population. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 1997;36:340–348. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199703000-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bernstein D.P, Fink L, Handelsman L, Foote L, Lovejoy M, Wenzel K, Ruggiero J. Initial reliability and validity of a new retrospective measure of child abuse and neglect. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1994;151:1132–1136. doi: 10.1176/ajp.151.8.1132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bick J, Nelson C.A. Early adverse experiences and the developing brain. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2016;41:177–196. doi: 10.1038/npp.2015.252. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Boyko E.J. Ruling out or ruling in disease with the most sensitive or specific diagnostic test: Short cut or wrong turn? Medical Decision Making. 1994;14:175–179. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9401400210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bremner J.D, Bolus R, Mayer E.A. Psychometric properties of the early Trauma Inventory–Self Report. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 2007;195:211–218. doi: 10.1097/01.nmd.0000243824.84651.6c. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bremner J.D, Vermetten E, Mazure C.M. Development and preliminary psychometric properties of an instrument for the measurement of childhood trauma: The Early Trauma Inventory. Depression and Anxiety. 2000;12:1–12. doi: 10.1002/1520-6394(2000)12:1<1::AID-DA1>3.0.CO;2-W. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Briere J, Hodges M, Godbout N. Traumatic stress, affect dysregulation, and dysfunctional avoidance: A structural equation model. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 2010;23:767–774. doi: 10.1002/jts.20578. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jts.20578. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Briere J, Runtz M. Differential adult symptomatology associated with three types of child abuse histories. Child Abuse Neglect. 1990;14:357–364. doi: 10.1016/0145-2134(90)90007-g. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Burgermeister D. Childhood adversity: A review of measurement instruments. Journal of Nursing Measurement. 2007;15:163–176. doi: 10.1891/106137407783095766. Review. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Burn C.C, Pitchard J.C, Whay H.R. Observer reliability for working equine welfare assessment: Problems with high prevalences of certain results. Animal Welfare. 2009;18:177–187. [Google Scholar]
  14. Burn C.C, Weir A.A. Using prevalence indices to aid interpretation and comparison of agreement ratings between two or more observers. Veterinary Journal. 2011;188:166–170. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.04.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin J.B. Bias, prevalence and kappa. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1993;46:423–429. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90018-v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Chiu G.R, Lutfey K.E, Litman H.J, Link C.L, Hall S.A, McKinlay J.B. Prevalence and overlap of childhood and adult physical, sexual, and emotional abuse: A descriptive analysis of results from the Boston Area Community Health (BACH) survey. Violence and Victims. 2013;28:381–402. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.11-043. Review. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Christoffersen M.N, Armour C, Lasgaard M, Andersen T.E, Elklit A. The prevalence of four types of childhood maltreatment in Denmark. Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health. 2013;9:149–156. doi: 10.2174/1745017901309010149. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1745017901309010149. eCollection 2013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Cicchetti D.V. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment. 1994;6:284–290. [Google Scholar]
  19. Draijer N, Langeland W. Childhood trauma and perceived parental dysfunction in etiology of dissociative symptoms in psychiatric inpatients. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1999;156:379–385. doi: 10.1176/ajp.156.3.379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Felitti V.J, Anda R.F, Nordenberg D, Williamson D.F, Spitz A.M, Edwards V, Marks J.S. Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 1998;14:245–258. doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(98)00017-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Ferguson K.S, Dacey C.M. Anxiety, depression, and dissociation in women health care providers reporting a history of childhood psychological abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect. 1997;21:941–952. doi: 10.1016/s0145-2134(97)00055-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Flinn M.V, Nepomnaschy P.A, Muehlenbein M.P, Ponzi D. Evolutionary functions of early social modulation of hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis development in humans. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 2011;35:1611–1629. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.01.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Font S.A, Maguire-Jack K. Pathways from childhood abuse and other adversities to adult health risks: The role of adult socioeconomic conditions. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2016;51:390–399. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.05.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Fryers T, Brugha T. Childhood determinants of adult psychiatric disorder. Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health. 2013;9:1–50. doi: 10.2174/1745017901309010001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Gallagher R, Flye B, Hurt S, Stone M, Hull J. Retrospective assessment of traumatic experiences. Journal of Personality Disorders. 1989;6:99–108. [Google Scholar]
  26. George D, Mallery P. SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon; 2003. 11.0 update. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hinkelmann K, Muhtz C, Dettenborn L, Agorastos A, Wingenfeld K, Spitzer C, Gao W. Association between childhood trauma and low hair cortisol in depressed patients and healthy control subjects. Biological Psychiatry. 2013;74:e15–17. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.04.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Horan J.M, Widom C.S. Cumulative childhood risk and adult functioning in abused and neglected children grown up. Development and Psychopathology. 2015;27:927–941. doi: 10.1017/S095457941400090X. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S095457941400090X. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hostinar C.E, Gunnar M.R. Future directions in the study of social relationships as regulators of the HPA axis across development. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology. 2013;42:564–575. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2013.804387. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Iffland B, Brähler E, Neuner F, Häuser W, Glaesmer H. Frequency of child maltreatment in a representative sample of the German population. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:980. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-980. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-980. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Jaeschke R, Guyatt G.H, Sackett D.L. Users’ guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The Journal of the American Medical Association. 1994;271:703–707. doi: 10.1001/jama.271.9.703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kaskeala L, Sillanmäki L, Sourander A. Help-seeking behaviour among Finnish adolescent males. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. 2015;69:605–612. doi: 10.3109/08039488.2015.1026273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kessler R.C, Davis C.G, Kendler K.S. Childhood adversity and adult psychiatric disorder in the US National Comorbidity Survey. Psychological Medicine. 1997;27:1101–1119. doi: 10.1017/s0033291797005588. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kessler R.C, McLaughlin K.A, Green J.G, Gruber M.J, Sampson N.A, Zaslavsky A.M, Williams D.R. Childhood adversities and adult psychopathology in the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. British Journal of Psychiatry. 2010;197:378–385. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.110.080499. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Klosterkötter J, Ruhrmann S, Schultze-Lutter F, Salokangas R.K.R, Linszen D, Birchwood M, …. on behalf of the EPOS Group The European Prediction of Psychosis Study (EPOS): Integrating early recognition and intervention in Europe. World Psychiatry. 2005;4:161–167. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Koivumaa-Honkanen H, Kaprio J, Honkanen R, Viinamäki H, Koskenvuo M. Life satisfaction and depression in a 15-year follow-up of healthy adults. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2004;39:994–999. doi: 10.1007/s00127-004-0833-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Lindert J, von Ehrenstein O.S, Grashow R, Gal G, Braehler E, Weisskopf M.G. Sexual and physical abuse in childhood is associated with depression and anxiety over the life course: Systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Public Health. 2014;59:359–372. doi: 10.1007/s00038-013-0519-5. Review. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Macrì S, Zoratto F, Laviola G. Early-stress regulates resilience, vulnerability and experimental validity in laboratory rodents through mother–offspring hormonal transfer. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 2011;35:1534–1543. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.12.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Michel J.S, Pace V.L, Edun A, Sawhney E, Thomas J. Development and validation of an explicit aggressive beliefs and attitudes scale. Journal of Personality Assessment. 2014;96:327–338. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2013.832260. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.832260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Min M, Farkas K, Minnes S, Singer L.T. Impact of childhood abuse and neglect on substance abuse and psychological distress in adulthood. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 2007;20:833–844. doi: 10.1002/jts.20250. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Patterson P, Skeate A, Schultze-Lutter F, Graf von Reventlow H, Wieneke A, Ruhrmann S, Salokangas R. The Trauma and Distress Scale. Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  42. Pietrini F, Lelli L, Verardi A, Silvestri C, Faravelli C. Retrospective assessment of childhood trauma: Review of the instruments. Rivista di Psichiatria. 2010;45:7–16. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Pine D.S, Cohen J.A. Trauma in children and adolescents: Risk and treatment of psychiatric sequelae. Biological Psychiatry. 2002;51:519–631. doi: 10.1016/s0006-3223(01)01352-x. Review. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Read J, Hammersley P, Rudegeair T. Why, when and how to ask about childhood abuse. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment. 2007;13:101–110. [Google Scholar]
  45. Roy C.A, Perry J.C. Instruments for the assessment of childhood trauma in adults. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 2004;192:343–351. doi: 10.1097/01.nmd.0000126701.23121.fa. Review. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Saed B.A, Talat L.A, Saed B.A. Prevalence of childhood maltreatment among college students in Erbil, Iraq. East Mediterranean Health Journal. 2013;19:441–446. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Salokangas R.K.R, Poutanen O, Stengård E. Screening for depression in primary care. Development and validation of the Depression Scale, a screening instrument for depression. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 1995;92:10–16. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1995.tb09536.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Salzman J.P, Salzman C, Wolfson A.N, Albanese M, Looper J, Ostacher M, Miyawaki E. Association between borderline personality structure and history of childhood abuse in adult volunteers. Comprehensive Psychiatry. 1993;34:254–257. doi: 10.1016/0010-440x(93)90007-q. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Sanders B, Becker-Lausen E. The measurement of psychological maltreatment: early data on the Child Abuse and Trauma Scale. Child Abuse & Neglect. 1995;19:315–323. doi: 10.1016/s0145-2134(94)00131-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Schultze-Lutter F, Michel C, Ruhrmann S, Schimmelmann B.G. Prevalence and clinical significance of DSM-5-attenuated psychosis syndrome in adolescents and young adults in the general population: The Bern Epidemiological At-Risk (BEAR) study. Schizophrenia Bulletin. 2014;40:1499–1508. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbt171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Schüssler-Fiorenza Rose S.M, Xie D, Stineman M. Adverse childhood experiences and disability in U.S. adults. PMR. 2014;6:670–680. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2014.01.013. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2014.01.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Soloff P.H, Lynch K.G, Kelly T.M. Childhood abuse as a risk factor for suicidal behavior in borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders. 2002;16:201–214. doi: 10.1521/pedi.16.3.201.22542. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Streiner D.L. A checklist for evaluating the usefulness of rating scales. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 1993;38:140–148. doi: 10.1177/070674379303800214. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Teicher M.H, Parigger A. The ‘Maltreatment and abuse chronology of exposure’ (MACE) Scale for the Retrospective Assessment of Abuse and Neglect during Development. PLoS One. 2015;10:0117423–e0117423. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117423. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117423. eCollection 2015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Thabrew H, De Sylva S, Romans S.E. Evaluating childhood adversity. Advances in Psychosomatic Medicine. 2012;32:35–57. doi: 10.1159/000330002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Triffleman E.G, Marmar C.R, Delucchi K.L, Ronfeldt H. Childhood trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder in substance abuse inpatients. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 1995;183:172–176. doi: 10.1097/00005053-199503000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Varese F, Smeets F, Drukker M, Lieverse R, Lataster T, Viechtbauer W, …. Bentall R.P. Childhood adversities increase the risk of psychosis: A meta-analysis of patient-control, prospective- and cross-sectional cohort studies. Schizophrenia Bulletin. 2012;38:661–671. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbs050. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbs050. Review. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Psychometric properties of the Trauma and Distress Scale, TADS, in an adult community sample in Finland

Articles from European Journal of Psychotraumatology are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES