Evaluation of the psychometric properties of trauma history measures: Assessment of reliability and validity.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Psychological trauma is a pervasive, influential antecedent in a variety of mental health presentations; however, the comparative reliability and validity of long-standing self-report trauma history batteries remain unclear despite recent developments in trauma assessment. The present study employed both clinical and nonclinical samples to conduct a range of psychometric analyses on three of the most commonly used "legacy" measures of psychological trauma history: Traumatic Life Events Questionnaire (TLEQ), Trauma History Questionnaire, and Traumatic Events Questionnaire. METHOD: = 136; age = 21.0; 82.7% female). RESULTS: = .71-.82). Acceptable test-retest reliability was obtained in the student sample (intraclass correlation coefficients = .69-.78), despite several subscales exhibiting some temporal instability. Criterion validity produced a more complex picture. The TLEQ and Traumatic Events Questionnaire correlated significantly with posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in both samples, whereas the Trauma History Questionnaire did not correlate with posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in the student sample. All three batteries exhibited significant negative relationships with social desirability, indicating potential reporting bias. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the TLEQ emerged as the most robust legacy measure of trauma history. Future studies should assess its psychometrics in comparison with the new generation of measures (i.e., Life Events Checklist, International Trauma Exposure Measure) to further the development of assessment tools in this area. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.043 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".