Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
Psychol Trauma. 2024 Nov;16(8):1409-1415. doi: 10.1037/tra0001635. Epub 2024 Jan 15.
Trauma exposure is often assessed using checklists such as the Life Events Checklist for (LEC-5; Weathers et al., 2013b). When participants endorse multiple events, respondents are asked to identify a single, worst event (i.e., index event). Recent work indicates that the "worst event" method leads to a concerning number of false negatives. The purpose of the current study was to replicate previous findings of false negatives and extend them by examining characteristics associated with false negatives, such as trauma type, means of exposure, recency of trauma, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom severity.
Adults ( = 476) provided data on trauma history assessed using a revised version of the LEC-5 that asked participants to provide follow-up information for each traumatic event endorsed. Participants also provided demographic data and completed the PTSD Checklist for Results: Two hundred thirty-four participants (49.16%) reported a worst event that met the definition of Criterion A trauma ("primary Criterion A" group). However, of the 242 participants who did not, 138 participants (57.02%, or 28.99% of the total sample) reported a secondary event that did meet Criterion A ("secondary Criterion A" group). The secondary Criterion A group most commonly reported serious life-threatening illnesses/injuries and "other" stressful life experiences as their index trauma that did not fulfill Criterion A. Participants in the primary and secondary Criterion A groups reported similar levels of PTSD symptoms. No differences were observed in means of exposure and recency of index trauma between the Criterion A groups.
Findings raise questions regarding the efficiency and accuracy of the worst event method to determine trauma exposure status via self-report. Researchers should consider alternative methods for assessing trauma exposure rather than relying on the worst event scoring method. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
创伤暴露通常通过清单进行评估，例如生活事件清单（LEC-5；Weathers 等人，2013b）。当参与者认可多个事件时，受访者被要求确定一个单一的、最严重的事件（即索引事件）。最近的研究表明，“最严重的事件”方法会导致相当数量的假阴性。本研究的目的是复制先前发现的假阴性，并通过检查与假阴性相关的特征，如创伤类型、暴露方式、创伤的新近程度和创伤后应激障碍（PTSD）症状严重程度，来扩展这些发现。
成年人（n=476）提供了使用 LEC-5 的修订版评估创伤史的数据，该版本要求参与者提供每个认可的创伤事件的后续信息。参与者还提供了人口统计学数据，并完成了 PTSD 检查表。
234 名参与者（49.16%）报告了符合创伤标准 A 定义的最严重事件（“主要标准 A”组）。然而，在 242 名未报告最严重事件的参与者中，有 138 名（57.02%，或总样本的 28.99%）报告了符合创伤标准 A 的次要事件（“次要标准 A”组）。次要标准 A 组最常见的索引创伤是严重危及生命的疾病/伤害和“其他”压力生活经历，但这些创伤不符合标准 A。主要和次要标准 A 组的参与者报告的 PTSD 症状水平相似。在标准 A 组之间，索引创伤的暴露方式和新近程度没有差异。
这些发现引发了关于通过自我报告确定创伤暴露状况的最严重事件方法的效率和准确性的问题。研究人员应考虑替代方法来评估创伤暴露，而不是依赖最严重事件评分方法。（PsycInfo 数据库记录（c）2024 APA，保留所有权利）。
