Psychometric properties of the Trauma and Distress Scale, TADS, in an adult community sample in Finland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increasing evidence that a history of childhood abuse and neglect is not uncommon among individuals who experience mental disorder and that childhood trauma experiences are associated with adult psychopathology. Although several interview and self-report instruments for retrospective trauma assessment have been developed, many focus on sexual abuse (SexAb) rather than on multiple types of trauma or adversity. Within the European Prediction of Psychosis Study, the Trauma and Distress Scale (TADS) was developed as a new self-report assessment of multiple types of childhood trauma and distressing experiences. The TADS includes 43 items and, following previous measures including the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire, focuses on five core domains: emotional neglect (EmoNeg), emotional abuse (EmoAb), physical neglect (PhyNeg), physical abuse (PhyAb), and SexAb. This study explores the psychometric properties of the TADS (internal consistency and concurrent validity) in 692 participants drawn from the general population who completed a mailed questionnaire, including the TADS, a depression self-report and questions on help-seeking for mental health problems. Inter-method reliability was examined in a random sample of 100 responders who were reassessed in telephone interviews. After minor revisions of PhyNeg and PhyAb, internal consistencies were good for TADS totals and the domain raw score sums. Intra-class coefficients for TADS total score and the five revised core domains were all good to excellent when compared to the interviewed TADS as a gold standard. In the concurrent validity analyses, the total TADS and its all core domains were significantly associated with depression and help-seeking for mental problems as proxy measures for traumatisation. In addition, robust cutoffs for the total TADS and its domains were calculated. Our results suggest the TADS as a valid, reliable, and clinically useful instrument for assessing retrospectively reported childhood traumatisation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".