Childhood Trauma, Emotional Regulation, Alexithymia, and Psychological Symptoms Among Adolescents: A Mediational Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Adolescents’ mental health is influenced by childhood trauma, emotional regulation, and psychological symptoms. This study aimed to explore these interconnections among adolescents attending a child and adolescent clinic. Method: Adolescents aged 13-19 from a city were recruited through purposive sampling. Data were collected using the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-Short Form (CTQ), Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS), and Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20. Adolescents with severe mental or physical illnesses were excluded. Results: A total of 100 participants were recruited aged 13-19. The CTQ scores positively correlated with DERS Scores ( r = 0.246, P < .05) and Internalizing scores ( r = 0.325, P < .01). DERS Scores strongly correlated with alexithymia ( r = 0.624, P < .001) and Internalizing scores( r = 0.556, P < .001). Regression analyses revealed CTQ, Alexithymia, and DERS scores significantly predicted Internalizing scores ( R 2 = 0.37). Mediation analysis showed that emotional regulation partially mediated the relationship between child trauma and Internalizing scores ( B = 0.059, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.011 to 0.133, t = 1.92, P = .01), as well as the relationship between Alexithymia and Internalizing scores( B = 0.255, 95% CI = 0.129 to 0.465, t = 3.31, P < .001). Conclusion: Findings highlight the importance of emotional regulation as a mediator in the connections between childhood trauma, alexithymia, and psychological symptoms among adolescents. This complementary mediation underscores the dual impact of direct and indirect effects on psychological well-being. The findings reveal intricate links between childhood trauma, emotional regulation, and alexithymia in adolescents with psychological symptoms. Emotional regulation proved to have a pivotal role in influencing psychological well-being. These results emphasize the importance of considering emotional regulation when assessing and maintaining mental health in adolescents, further contributing to understanding treatment needs.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".