UCLA/Duke University National Center for Child Traumatic Stress, University of California, Los Angeles, 90064, USA.
Child Dev. 2010 Jul-Aug;81(4):1053-76. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01454.x.
Methods are needed for quantifying the potency and differential effects of risk factors to identify at-risk groups for theory building and intervention. Traditional methods for constructing war exposure measures are poorly suited to "unpack" differential relations between specific types of exposure and specific outcomes. This study of 881 Bosnian adolescents compared both common factor-effect indicator (using exploratory factor analysis) versus composite causal-indicator methods for "unpacking" dimensions of war exposure and their respective paths to postwar adjustment outcomes. The composite method better supported theory building and most intervention applications, showing how multitiered interventions can enhance treatment effectiveness and efficiency in war settings. Used together, the methods may unpack the elements and differential effects of "caravans" of risk and promotive factors that co-occur across development.
需要采用方法来量化风险因素的效力和差异影响，以确定高危群体，从而进行理论构建和干预。构建战争暴露测量的传统方法不太适合“剖析”特定类型的暴露与特定结果之间的差异关系。本研究比较了 881 名波斯尼亚青少年，使用探索性因素分析的共同因子-效应指标与综合因果指标方法来“剖析”战争暴露的各个维度及其对战后适应结果的各自路径。综合方法更有利于理论构建和大多数干预应用，表明多层干预如何增强战争环境中的治疗效果和效率。这些方法一起使用，可以剖析跨越发展过程共同出现的风险和促进因素的“车队”的要素和差异影响。
