Development and Validation of a Brief Form of the Childhood Adversities Questionnaire Among a Population of Mood Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Childhood adversities have significantly negative consequences on physical and mental health. The Childhood Experience of Care and Abuse Questionnaire, Version 3 (CECA.Q3) interview, as an extended version of the CECA.Q, is widely used in the assessment of childhood adversities. Although its reliability and validity have been demonstrated, the application of CECA.Q3 is limited due to its intensive and lengthy interview. This article aimed to develop and validate a brief form of the CECA.Q3 (CECA.Q3-BF) among a population of mood disorders. Data analyzed were from a clinical sample of 210 patients with mood disorders. Data were randomly split into training and testing datasets. The training data set was used for scale reduction by applying principal component factor analysis, while the testing one was used for cross-validation to examine whether the CECA.Q3-BF could have a good yield of accuracy. The optimal cutoff points of the CECA.Q3 were also tested. Overall, four out of eight subscales had items reduction without compromising their accuracy of measurements for childhood adversities. They are Antipathy (reduced by four items), Neglect (reduced by five items), Psychological Abuse (reduced by 15 items), and Role Reversal (reduced by 11 items). The CECA.Q3-BF removed 35 items (35/100, 35%) from the full CECA.Q3. The accuracy of CECA.Q3-BF was validated in the testing dataset. The CECA.Q3-BF offers a brief but good accuracy of measure for childhood adversities. Future studies are warranted to further validate this brief form. The CECA.Q3-BF is expected to improve the application of CECA.Q3 in clinical and epidemiological surveys, as it significantly reduces the length of the interview and therefore has better compliance.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".