Overprotection and overcontrol in childhood: An evaluation on reliability and validity of 33-item Expanded Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ-33), Chinese version
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Overprotection and overcontrol from parents or other family members, which are not rare in the Chinese culture, have been suggested to be traumatic experiences for some children. However, research on overprotection/overcontrol is much rarer in China compared with other childhood trauma subtypes. One of the possible reasons for this is the lack of easy and feasible screening tools. In this study, we therefore translated and validated a Chinese version of the 33-item Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ-33), which was expanded from the widely-used 28-item CTQ with an additional overprotection/overcontrol subscale. A total of 248 young healthy participants were recruited and completed the Chinese version of CTQ-33, and 50 of them were retested after an interval of two weeks. At baseline, all participants also completed the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire and the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale to assess their depression and anxiety, respectively. Our main findings include that: (1) the Chinese version of CTQ-33 showed a good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α coefficient = 0.733) and an excellent test-retest reliability over a two-week period (ICC = 0.861); (2) the previously reported significant associations between the overprotection/overcontrol and other subtypes of childhood trauma (abuse and neglect), as well as psychopathological conditions such as depression can all be replicated using the Chinese version of CTQ-33. These results suggest that the Chinese version of CTQ-33 would be a promising tool for assessing various subtypes of childhood adversities, especially the overprotection/overcontrol experiences in Chinese populations.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".