Assessing the family dynamics of childhood maltreatment history with the Childhood Attachment and Relational Trauma Screen (CARTS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Existing survey measures of childhood trauma history generally fail to take into account the relational-socioecological environment in which childhood maltreatment occurs. Variables such as the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, the emotional availability of caregivers, witnessing the abuse of others, and the respondent's own thoughts, feelings, and actions in response to maltreatment are rarely assessed by current measures. METHODS: To address these concerns, the current study further investigated the family dynamics of childhood maltreatment using the Childhood Attachment and Relational Trauma Screen (CARTS) in 1,782 persons assessed online. RESULTS: Paired differences in means between item-rated descriptiveness of self, mothers, and fathers suggested that respondents' relationship with their biological fathers was less positive and secure than their relationship with their biological mothers, and that biological fathers were more often the perpetrator of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse than biological mothers. However, results further suggested that ratings between self, mothers, and fathers were positively correlated such that, for example, reports of a mother's or a respondent's own abusive behavior were more likely in the presence of reports of a father's abusive behavior. In addition, analyses evaluating witnessing violence demonstrated that fathers were rated as more often violent toward mothers than the reverse, although intimate partner violence was also frequently bidirectional. Analyses of sibling ratings further demonstrated that older brothers were either as or more frequently abusive when compared with parents. Finally, results suggested that childhood emotional, physical, and sexual abuse were much more often perpetrated by family members than extra-familial and non-family members. CONCLUSIONS: In so far as these findings are consistent with the prior childhood trauma and attachment literature, the current study further supports the utility of the CARTS as a means of assessing the family dynamics of childhood attachment and maltreatment within a relational-socioecological framework.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".