The reliability and validity of reported exposure to significant trauma is critical to research evaluating outcomes following serious and distressing life events. The current study examined the reliability of reported exposure to disaster, fire, transportation accidents, physical assault, and sexual assault across 5- (N = 251), 12- (N = 223), and 24-month (N = 109) intervals in undergraduates completing a screening measure of probable trauma (N = 3,045). Concordance with later responses to an alternate checklist and events assessed via clinical interview was examined in a subset of participants (N = 274). Five-month reliabilities ranged from good to fair (κ = .40–.71) and were similar to 1–2 week retest estimates in the extant literature. Reliabilities for fire, accidents, and sexual assault remained stable over 12- and 24-month intervals. Coefficients for disaster and physical assault decreased over time. Agreement with the alternate checklist was fair to excellent in those completing the follow-up assessment (κ = .51–.87). Concordance with interview-based trauma was acceptable for accidents (κ = .52) and sexual violence (κ = .82) but poor for disaster, fire, and physical assault (κ = .34–.38). Specificity, negative predictive power, and negative likelihood ratios suggest checklists may hold utility in ruling out previous trauma. Sensitivities indicate that screening instruments may broadly capture individuals experiencing traumatic life events although positive predictive power was limited except in the prediction of traffic accidents and sexual assault. Variability across domains suggests that the properties of checklist measures could be better conceptualized at the level of individual exposure events.
Objective: Shame is a transdiagnostic emotion of strong clinical and research interest. Yet, there is a lack of consensus on the definition and varying methods employed across self-report measures, potentially affecting our ability to accurately study shame and examine whether clinical interventions to alter shame are effective. This paper offers a systematic review of self-report measures of generalized shame. Methods: PubMed, PsycInfo, and Web of Science were searched. Studies were included when they were available in English and the primary aim was to evaluate measurement properties of scales or subscales designed to measure generalized shame in adults. Results: Thirty-six papers examining 19 scales were identified, with measures of trait shame more common than state shame. Construct validity, internal consistency, and structural validity were relative strengths. Development and content validity studies were lacking and suffered from low methodological quality.
Recent research has linked identity instability with engagement in nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI; Claes, Luyckx, & Bijttebier, 2014; Claes et al., 2015). This study examined the relationship between self-concept clarity (SCC), an index of identity stability, and NSSI in a sample of 147 college students, using a cross-sectional survey design. The relationship between SCC and emotion dysregulation in NSSI severity was also examined. SCC was significantly negatively associated with NSSI engagement, as well as NSSI frequency and versatility, above negative affect or age. SCC fully accounted for the variance originally explained by emotion dysregulation in NSSI versatility. NSSI frequency was not significantly predicted by emotion regulation, but self-concept clarity reached marginal significance. These findings provide preliminary support for identity instability as a contributing factor to a relationship between emotion dysregulation and NSSI severity. Possible explanations and future research directions are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.