| ARTIC scale (Baker et al., 2016) |
Measures central components of attitudes
supportive of TIC implementation Different versions: 45-, 35-, and 10-item;
seven subscales: (a) underlying causes of problem
behavior and symptoms, (b) responses to problem
behavior and symptoms, (c) on-the-job behavior,
(d) self-efficacy at work, (e) reactions to the
work, (f) personal support of TIC, and (g)
system-wide support for TIC Versions for human services and education
Example items: I believe that…(a) “Students’
learning and behavior problems are rooted in their
history of difficult life events,” (g) “I think I
do/will have enough support to implement the
trauma-informed care approach”
|
Based on Trauma Informed Care Belief Measure;
redeveloped with extensive mixed method process
including community-based participatory research
and updated review of theoretical, empirical, and
measurement literatures related to TIC
|
Online/paper survey of 760 service providers
(e.g., human services, health care, education) CFA shows seven-factor structure fits data Strong internal consistency and test–retest
over 6 months Construct and criterion-related validity shown
through correlations with indicators of
familiarity with TIC, staff- and system-level
indicators of TIC implementation
|
| TICOMETER (American Institutes
for Research, 2016; Bassuk et al.,
2017) |
Measures the level of TIC in health and human
service organizations (can be used with all
staff) 35 Items across five TIC domains: (a) build
trauma-informed knowledge and skills, (b)
establish trusting relationships, (c) respect
service users, (d) foster trauma-informed service
delivery, and (e) promote trauma-informed
procedures and policies Example items: (a) “The organization offers
training that describes the impact of trauma on
brain and body,” (c) “Reception staff are trained
to greet service users in a welcoming manner,” and
(d) “Privacy policies have been discussed with
service users and adapted based on their
feedback”
|
|
Online survey of 424 health care providers Good/excellent test−retest reliability and
internal consistency (domain and overall) Rating scale models testing domains show good
item fit Face validity confirmed through expert
panel CFA shows construct validity Convergent validity established through
correlating scores with expert ratings of TIC for
organizations; ROC model showed scores
distinguished between organizations’ levels of TIC
orientation
|
| CPC (Clark et al.,
2008) |
Measures consumer’s perceptions of care and
satisfaction with services for co-occurring
disorders and/or trauma-related disorders; for use
in behavioral health settings. 26 Items, four factors measuring (a) service
integration, (b) choice in services, (c) cultural
sensitivity, and (d) trauma-informed
assessment Example items: (a) “I was asked about my
personal strengths and coping skills,” (b) “I had
a choice in the services I received,” and (c)
“Treatment was provided in a way that respected my
values and beliefs”
|
Developed in the context of intervention study
for women with co-occurring disorders Items developed from existing tools, workgroup
member suggestions, and study site needs
assessment (e.g., focus groups with women
survivors)
|
Administered in person to 2,729 women in
intervention study Strong internal consistency; 2-week test–retest
reliability poor to acceptable for scales Construct validity supported through
correlations among subscales and with measures of
satisfaction with provider and services Psychometrics held up across ethnic groups
|
| TIP Scales (Goodman et al.,
2016) |
Measures the extent to which survivors perceive
DV programs to be trauma-informed (focus on staff
practices as opposed to infrastructure) 20 Items, four themes: (a) environment of
agency and mutual respect, (b) access to
information on trauma, (c) opportunities for
connection, and (d) emphasis on strengths Supplemental scales: (e) cultural
responsiveness and inclusivity and (f) parenting
support Example items: (a) “Staff respect the choices I
make,” (b) “I have the opportunity to learn how
abuse and other difficulties affect responses in
the body,” and (d) “Staff respect the strengths I
have gained through my life experiences”
|
Developed through qualitative literature
review, consultation with 15 national experts on
TIP in the DV context, focus groups with survivors
and advocates Initial items were piloted with small sample
before validation
|
370 Women using DV services completed paper
surveys Three rounds of EFA to refine items and verify
factor structure; high factor loadings overall Construct validity shown through correlations
with related measures and among subscales; ICCs
show agency- and individual-level differences are
captured Internal consistency good—excellent for
subscales (English/Spanish versions)
|
| VT-ORG (Hallinan et al.,
2019) |
Measures employee perceptions of whether an
organization is vicarious trauma-informed 63 Base items but varies by version: law
enforcement, fire services, emergency medical
services, and victim services; five subscales: (a)
leadership and mission, (b) management and
supervision, (c) employee empowerment and work
environment, (d) training and professional
development, and (e) staff health and wellness Example items: (a) “Leadership proactively
addresses vicarious trauma in the organization’s
long-term vision and strategy” and (c) “My
organization provides employees with a private,
comfortable, and safe workspace”
|
Development grounded in industrial and
organizational psychology theories (Galbraith, 2002; Gittell,
2006) Five strategies (corresponding to subscales)
were identified by representatives from diverse
group of organizations
|
Completed online by 3018 individuals from 14
organizations (mostly law enforcement) Excellent internal consistency for scale
overall; good–excellent for subscales Convergent validity shown through subscale
correlations with related measures CFA supported the proposed five-factor
structure
|
| Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of TIP Survey (King
et al., 2019) |
Measures knowledge, attitudes, and practices
related to TIC among health care professionals
within health care setting 21 Items, three subscales: (a) knowledge, (b)
attitudes, and practices Example items: (a) “There is a connection
between mental health issues and past traumatic
experiences or ACEs,” (b) “TIP is essential for
working effectively with our patients and their
families,” and (c) “I help patients and peers to
recognize their own strengths”
|
Adapted existing unpublished/unvalidated tool
(Abdoh et al.,
2017) originally developed through
literature review and piloted with staff Tool refined through face validity assessment
with experts in childhood adversity and trauma
|
Online survey completed by 592 staff at
pediatric health care institution Adequate–very good internal consistency for
three subscales and scale overall Construct validity supported by three-factor
CFA with adequate fit Correlations between subscales indicate they
are not redundant
|
| TSRT (Chadwick Center for
Children and Families, 2013; Lang
et al., 2016)a
|
Measures child welfare worker perceptions of
agency/agency staff understanding of and capacity
to use TIP 81 Items,b 12 domains: (a) trauma
training and education, (b) staff trauma knowledge
and practice, (c) individual trauma knowledge and
practice, (d) trauma supervision and support, (e)
staff supports child relationships, (f) birth
family trauma support, (g) resource family trauma
support, (h) staff addresses child psychological
safety, (i) agency trauma assessment, (j) access
to trauma-informed services, (k) local agency
collaboration—general practices, and (l) local
agency collaboration—trauma practices Example items: (b) “The child welfare staff at
my agency work as a team with each family,
empowering them to make decisions about their
services” and (h) “The child welfare staff at my
agency make psychological safety a priority when
making case decisions”
|
Initially developed by CTISP expert panel to
align with NCTSN Essential Elements of
Trauma-Informed Child Welfare System (Henricks et al., 2011). Minor revisions after EFA using year 1 data
from current study
|
Online survey completed by 223 (Year 1) and 231
(Year 3) child welfare staff (various roles) Good–excellent internal consistency for each
subscale at Years 1 and 3 EFA supported 12 domains; correlations among
subscales were small–large (Year 1) and
moderate–large (Year 3)
|
| Child Welfare Trauma-Informed Assessment Tool (Madden et al., 2017) |
Measures the use of TIC among frontline child
welfare service providers 11 Items across four factors: (a) knowledge and
skills, (b) parental/caregiver trauma, (c)
referrals, and (d) trauma impact Example items: (a) “I have a clear
understanding of what trauma-informed care means
in my professional role at CPS,” (c) “I consider
the cultural backgrounds of the parents that I
work with when making referrals,” and (d) “I am
able to recognize the signs and symptoms of
trauma, even if a person does not verbally tell
me”
|
Developed in response to U.S.-state welfare
agency’s newly implemented trauma-informed
framework and practice model Items developed through examining TIC
literature and existing tools (especially NCTSN, 2008) Draft tool revised based on feedback from child
welfare experts
|
Completed in-person by 213 child welfare
workers, supervisors, and administrators Face/content validity examined by expert
panel EFA showed good fit for four-factor model Good–excellent internal consistency for four
factors and scale overall
|
| TISCI (2nd ed.; (Richardson et al.,
2010, 2012) |
Measures extent to which child welfare systems
function in a trauma-informed manner; designed for
measuring change from training initiatives 18 Items, three scales (a) agency policy, (b)
agency practice, and (c) integration (individual
practice) Example items: (a) “Written policy is
established committing to trauma informed
practices,” (b) “My agency addresses the impact
that secondary traumatic stress has on staff,” and
(c) “I have a clear understanding of what trauma
informed practice means in my professional
role”
|
Developed in the context of a complex community
system change initiative Items developed through literature review,
consultation with content experts, and study of
existing instruments Revised after piloting; some items based on the
EBPAS (Aarons,
2005)
|
Completed in-person by 342 personnel (e.g.,
court, human services) Good−excellent internal consistency for each
factor Separate CFAs for community and individual
items supported two factor structures for each,
but problematic items suggest further revision
required Subsequent CFA on second edition supported
revised three-factor structure
|
| TISC-R (Salloum et al.,
2015, 2018
c) |
Measures TISC practices used by
professionals 10 Items, three factors: (a) utilizing
organizational resources and supports (four
items), (b) organizational practices (three
items), and (c) personal self-care practices
(three items) Example items: (a) “I attend trainings on
stress management,” (b) “I utilize peer support,”
and (c) “I practice stress management through
meditation, prayer, conscious relaxation, deep
breathing, and exercise”
|
Original TISC based on self-care
recommendations from the Child Welfare Trauma
Training Toolkits (Child Welfare
Committee, NCTSN, 2008) Revised based on authors’ expertise in child
welfare, expert review from two child welfare
professionals, and review of the literature
|
Completed by 177 child welfare workers Adequate–very good internal consistency for
subscales and scale overall EFA and CFA revealed three-factor model fit
data well Discriminant validity shown through
correlations among subscales Associations with measures of related
constructs indicate convergent validity
|
| STSI-OA (Sprang et al.,
2016) |
Measures the extent to which an organization is
STS-informed and responds to the impacts of STS in
an organization 40 Items, six domains: (a) organizational
promotion of resilience building activities, (b)
degree to which an organization promotes physical
and psychological safety, (c) degree to which the
organization has STS relevant policies, (d) how
STS informed leadership practices are, (e) how STS
informed routine organizational practices are, and
(f) how well the organization evaluates and
monitors STS policies and practices in the
workplace Example items: (b) “Staff in the organization
are encouraged to not share graphic details of
trauma stories unnecessarily with co-workers,” (c)
“The organization has defined procedures to
promote resiliencebuilding in staff (e.g.,
self-care workshops),” and (f) “The organization
responds to what it learns through evaluation,
monitoring and/or feedback in ways that promote
safety and resilience”
|
Development followed four-stage process: (a)
expert group generate items based on literature
and existing tools; refined through Modified
Delphi process, (b) further revisions based on
review by national experts and NCTSN STS
committee, (c) refinement based on field testing
by various system representatives, and (d)
psychometric analysis (current study)
|
Online or paper survey completed by 629 workers
from helping professions (e.g., child welfare,
community mental health) Internal consistency for subscales and scale
overall is excellent; very good 90-day test–retest
reliability Concurrent criterion validity shown through
correlation with (TSRT) EFA supported five-factor structure
|
| Measure of foundational knowledge about TIC (Sundborg, 2019) |
Measures foundational knowledge related to
TIC 30 Items cover six topics: TIC implementation
and principles, neurobiology of stress and trauma,
ACE research, work-related stress and trauma,
systemic oppression and issues of power, and
historical trauma including intergenerational
transmission Example items: “I know the importance of
self-care for the workforce,” “I understand how
vulnerable and marginalized people and their
communities can be differentially impacted by
trauma,” and “I understand the difference between
trauma-specific services and trauma-informed
care”
|
|
Online survey completed by 118 human service
workers (e.g., early childhood sectors, public
health) Excellent internal consistency Convergent validity indicated through
significant correlations with other TIC-related
measures
|
| TIAA (THRIVE, 2011;
Thrive Initiative, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c) |
Measures children’s behavioral health agency
performance related to TIP for the purpose of
informing change efforts and benefitting the
overall system for youth and families 42 Items, six domains: (a) physical/emotional
safety, (b) youth/family empowerment, (c)
trustworthiness, (d) trauma competence, (e)
cultural competence, and (f) commitment to
trauma-informed philosophy Three versions: agency, youth, and family Example items: (a) “Space: Agency displays map
of space showing exits, restrooms, parking,
offices; reception area is secure; rooms are
labeled, private and soundproof; all areas are
well-lit.” (agency version). Other items
(subscales not labeled): “Staff worked with me to
identify my strengths as a parent and how to use
them to help my child” and “Staff at this agency
respect my culture, traditions and beliefs”
(family version)
|
Key stakeholder group identified domains
informed by Trauma-Informed Systems Theory (Fallot & Harris, 2001) Workgroup reviewed literature and existing
tools to draft items; reviewed by stakeholder
group Refined through pilot process with youth and
families
|
Completed by 1,441 agency staff, 213 youth, and
574 family members (administration unclear) Expert panel during development process helped
established face validity Internal consistency for six domains is
good–excellent. EFA generally supported seven-factor structure
for the agency version but 10-factor structures
for youth/family versions; authors note further
validation required
|
