MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Instruments for the Assessment of Childhood Trauma in Adults

2004· review· en· W1983904931 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychopathologySexual abuseClinical psychologySelf-report studyPsychometricsPoison controlPsychologyChild abuseInjury preventionRetrospective cohort studyMedicinePsychiatryMedical emergencySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between childhood trauma and adult psychopathology has been explored in the literature. The goal of this study is to compare existing instruments that measure retrospective interpersonal gross childhood trauma. A computerized search from 1985 to March 2003 was performed to locate instruments used to measure childhood trauma. These were divided into interview-rated and self-report measures and were compared on various parameters. Twenty-one observer-rated and 21 self-report instruments were identified. In a comparison, five observer-rated measures and three self-report measures stand out for having favorable characteristics such as assessing multiple types of trauma and reporting on psychometric properties. A number of instruments are designed to measure a single type of trauma, usually sexual abuse, but most of these do not report psychometric properties. A few instruments used to measure retrospective childhood trauma are particularly useful for systematic research in adult psychiatric disorders.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it