Validation and cross-cultural comparisons of the German Childhood Attachment and Relational Trauma Screen (CARTS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Child maltreatment is embedded in a complex system of familial, societal and cultural influences. However, the microsystemic framework in which child maltreatment occurs has not been sufficiently accounted for in previous measures of trauma history. In order to include this relational context, a novel survey method, the Childhood Attachment and Relational Trauma Screen (CARTS), was developed, focusing specifically on the familial environment and childhood attachment relationships. Prior validation studies of the English and Italian versions of the CARTS have tended to support its use.Objective: The current study aims at evaluating the psychometric properties of the German version of the CARTS as well as conducting cross-cultural comparison analyses. It is part of an international research project of the Global Collaboration on Traumatic Stress which was initiated by the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ISTSS).Method: The sample consisted of n = 140 participants from the German general population aged 18 or older. Further trauma specific measures (GPS, BSI-18, CTQ-SF, ECR-R, PBI) were included for validation. Cross-cultural comparisons were conducted with a German subsample of students in reference to Italian- and English-speaking student samples.Results: Most CARTS subscales showed acceptable internal consistency. Statistically significant relationships were observed with other measures of childhood trauma exposure and parental bonding, as well as PTSD- and other distress-related outcomes. Comparing the German-speaking sample with Italian- and English-speaking samples indicated significant differences with regard to childhood attachment and child maltreatment.Conclusion: The present findings are consistent with previous results concerning the CARTS and advance the validation of this novel survey method within German-speaking samples. Further, the CARTS appears to be sensitive to cross-sample differences in childhood attachment and child maltreatment. Further psychometric evaluations of the CARTS in other languages and within further German-speaking samples are needed.
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 | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".