Validation and standardization of the Childhood Trauma Screener (CTS) in the general population

3Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: A valid, quick and widely applicable retrospective screening tool for child maltreatment is of great importance to better adapt interventions and treatments. The Childhood Trauma Screener (CTS), derived from the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ), is one such instrument that aims to increase the likelihood of detecting mental and physical disorders that have manifested in adulthood as a result of traumatic experiences and maltreatment in childhood and adolescence. The present study aimed to investigate the psychometric properties of the CTS and generate normative data. Methods: Data from two representative surveys were combined. Both surveys used identical methods. The CTS, consisting of five items, other self-report instruments, and demographic characteristics were used. Construct validity was examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). A subsample was used to examine convergent validity with the Adverse Childhood Experiences Questionnaire (ACE). Normative data are reported for age groups and gender. Results: A total of 5039 study participants provided valid responses to the 5-items questionnaire (54.3% female, response rate = 78.9%). CFA showed good fit indices for a 2-factor solution. Convergent validity was generally supported by moderate intercorrelations with the ACE. Conclusions: The results confirm the solid psychometric properties of the CTS as an easy-to-use, ultra-short retrospective measure of child maltreatment. The data can be used to compare sample or individual results with reference data provided.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Witt, A., Öz, Y., Sachser, C., Brähler, E., Glaesmer, H., & Fegert, J. M. (2022). Validation and standardization of the Childhood Trauma Screener (CTS) in the general population. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-022-00506-6

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free