Italian translation and cross-cultural comparison with the Childhood Attachment and Relational Trauma Screen (CARTS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Childhood Attachment and Relational Trauma Screen (CARTS) is a computer-administered survey designed to assess retrospectively the socio-ecological context in which instances of child abuse may have occurred. To date, studies supporting the validity of the CARTS have only been undertaken in English-speaking North American populations. Validation projects in other countries and cross-cultural comparisons are therefore warranted.Objective: Develop and preliminarily evaluate the psychometric properties of an Italian version of the CARTS on college students and compare such observations to data acquired from Canadian students.Method: Seventy-nine undergraduate students from the University of Padua (Italy) completed an Italian translation of the CARTS as well as measures of childhood experiences, mental health and attachment, responses to which were compared to those obtained in 288 Canadian students who completed the CARTS in English.Results: Internal consistency and convergent validity with the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire and Parental Bonding Instrument were found to be acceptable for the Italian translation. Within the Italian sample, correlation analyses suggested that CARTS Mother ratings referring to attachment and abuse were associated with romantic attachment, whereas CARTS Father ratings were significantly correlated to PTSD symptoms and other symptoms of psychopathology-distress. Significant differences between Italian and Canadian students across the relationship types for the CARTS abuse and attachment scales were found, indicating that Italian students rated their mothers and fathers as simultaneously less abusive, but also less as a source of secure attachment.Conclusions: The results of this preliminary study seem to suggest convergent validity of the Italian CARTS and the association between childhood attachment-related experiences and romantic attachment. Cultural variations were identified between Canadian and Italian students in both attachment and abuse scales. Future studies to investigate cross-cultural variations in the relational context of childhood abuse and in order to boost Italian CARTS psychometric features are warranted.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".