Departament de Psicología Clínica i de la Salut, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Dirección de Investigaciones Epidemiológicas y Psicosociales, Instituto Nacional de Psiquiatría Ramón de la Fuente Muñiz, Mexico City, Mexico.
Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2023;14(2):2222614. doi: 10.1080/20008066.2023.2222614.
Investigating different approaches to operationalizing childhood adversity and how they relate to transdiagnostic psychopathology is relevant to advance research on mechanistic processes and to inform intervention efforts. To our knowledge, previous studies have not used questionnaire and interview measures of childhood adversity to examine factor-analytic and cumulative-risk approaches in a complementary manner. The first aim of this study was to identify the dimensions underlying multiple subscales from three well-established childhood adversity measures (the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire, the Childhood Experience of Care and Abuse Interview, and the Interview for Traumatic Events in Childhood) and to create a cumulative risk index based on the resulting dimensions. The second aim of the study was to examine the childhood adversity dimensions and the cumulative risk index as predictors of measures of depression, anxiety, and psychosis-spectrum psychopathology. Participants were 214 nonclinically ascertained young adults who were administered questionnaire and interview measures of depression, anxiety, psychosis-spectrum phenomena, and childhood adversity. Four childhood adversity dimensions were identified that captured experiences in the domains of , , , and . As hypothesized, the adversity dimensions demonstrated some specificity in their associations with psychopathology symptoms. was uniquely associated with the negative symptom dimension of psychosis (negative schizotypy and schizoid symptoms), with schizotypal symptoms, and with depression, anxiety, and psychosis-spectrum symptoms. No associations were found with the dimension. Finally, the cumulative risk index was associated with all the outcome measures. The findings support the use of both the empirically-derived adversity dimensions and the cumulative risk index and suggest that these approaches may facilitate different research objectives. This study contributes to our understanding of the complexity of childhood adversity and its links to different expressions of psychopathology.
研究操作性童年逆境的不同方法及其与跨诊断精神病理学的关系，对于推进机制过程的研究和为干预措施提供信息是很重要的。据我们所知，以前的研究没有使用问卷和访谈测量童年逆境来以互补的方式检验因素分析和累积风险方法。本研究的第一个目的是从三个成熟的童年逆境测量工具（童年创伤问卷、童年照顾和虐待访谈、童年创伤事件访谈）的多个子量表中确定潜在维度，并基于这些维度创建一个累积风险指数。本研究的第二个目的是检验童年逆境维度和累积风险指数作为抑郁、焦虑和精神病谱系精神病理学的预测指标。参与者是 214 名非临床确定的年轻成年人，他们接受了抑郁、焦虑、精神病谱系现象和童年逆境的问卷和访谈测量。确定了四个童年逆境维度，这些维度捕捉到了领域中的经历， ， ，和 。正如假设的那样，逆境维度与精神病理学症状的关联具有一定的特异性。 与精神病的阴性症状维度（阴性精神分裂症和精神分裂症样症状）具有独特的关联， 与精神分裂症样症状有关， 与抑郁、焦虑和精神病谱系症状有关。与 维度没有关联。最后，累积风险指数与所有的结果测量都有关联。研究结果支持使用经验性得出的逆境维度和累积风险指数，并表明这些方法可能有助于不同的研究目标。本研究有助于我们理解童年逆境的复杂性及其与不同精神病理学表现的联系。
