Factor Analysis of the Trauma and Attachment Belief Scale: A Measure of Cognitive Schema Disruption Related to Traumatic Stress

Varra, Edward M.; Pearlman, Laurie Anne; Brock, Kathleen J.; Hodgson, Sarah

doi:10.1080/19322880802266813

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A 4-factor model that accounted for 37.32% of the total variance was found with the following factors represented: Other, Other-Safety, Self-Safety, and Self. This factor structure differs from the 10-and 3-factor models found in past literature (Pearlman, 2003;Varra, Pearlman, Brock, & Hodgson, 2008), and may reflect concerns that are unique to partners of service members specifically related to other-safety and self-safety. These findings support the use of the TABS with partners of service members.…”

contrasting

confidence: 87%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploratory factor analysis of the Trauma and Attachment Belief Scale among partners of service members.

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Trauma and Attachment Belief Scale (TABS; Pearlman, 2003) was developed to evaluate levels of cognitive schema disruption in 5 areas (safety, trust, intimacy, control, and esteem) identified by constructivist self-development theory as being sensitive to the effects of trauma. Although the TABS has been used to assess the effects of trauma in various populations commonly exposed to traumatic experiences, it has yet to be applied to a sample of partners of military service members, a population past research has identified as being exposed to secondary trauma related to partner military deployment. The current study evaluated the factor structure of the TABS with a sample of partners of service members. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on TABS data completed by a sample of 376 marital and nonmarital partners of service members. A 4-factor model that accounted for 37.32% of the total variance was found with the following factors represented: Other, Other-Safety, Self-Safety, and Self. This factor structure differs from the 10-and 3-factor models found in past literature (Pearlman, 2003;Varra, Pearlman, Brock, & Hodgson, 2008), and may reflect concerns that are unique to partners of service members specifically related to other-safety and self-safety. These findings support the use of the TABS with partners of service members. Information related to levels of cognitive schema disruption gained from the TABS can provide clinicians working with partners of service members with information to aid in effective implementation of empirically validated cognitive behavioral therapy and cognitive processing therapy treatments.

show abstract

contrasting

confidence: 87%

“…The TABS factor structure has been evaluated by both Pearlman (2003) and Varra, Pearlman, Brock, and Hodgson (2008) with both 10-factor and three-factor solutions identified. Pearlman employed a principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation and identified 10 factors when using the TABS on a nonclinical college sample.…”

Section: Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploratory factor analysis of the Trauma and Attachment Belief Scale among partners of service members.

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The current inventory of tools available to measure and understand STS do not comprehensively account for whether the symptoms are functionally related to indirect trauma, determine the level of functional impairment caused by the STS symptoms, and/or consider the duration of the disturbance. For example, the Professional Quality of Life (ProQOL-5) (Stamm, 2009), the Trauma Attachment and Beliefs Scale (Varra et al, 2008), and the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale (STSS) (Bride et al, 2004) all use different conceptual frameworks for understanding the mechanisms of action that underlie symptom disturbance. However none of these tools ties these disturbances to the level of disturbance of daily functioning that may accompany the schematic or mood changes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic and Translational Utility of the Secondary Traumatic Stress Clinical Algorithm (STS-CA)

Sprang

Whitt-Woosley

Eslinger

2021

J Interpers Violence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Current tools available to assess secondary traumatic stress (STS) do not account for whether the symptoms are functionally related to indirect trauma, determine functional impairment caused by the STS symptoms, and/or consider the duration of the disturbance. This prevents delineation of various expressions of traumatic stress related to indirect trauma that may constitute the phenomenon of STS. The STS Clinical Algorithm (STS-CA) was developed to make these distinctions, so that interventions can be tailored to need. This study investigates the following: (1) the diagnostic concordance between the STS-CA findings and scores on the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale (STSS); (2) reasons for diagnostic discrepancies between the STS-CA and the STSS assessments. Method: Three trained interviewers used the STS-CA to guide the determination of clinical outcome ( N = 181) in a diverse group of helping professionals. Results: There was 100% agreement between the CAPS and the STS-CA, and fair agreement (κ =.426, p = .000) between the STS-CA and the STSS. The STS-CA demonstrated more sensitivity in classifying positive cases, and specificity in delineating those with atypical cluster presentations or little to no functional impairment that prohibited a post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis than the STSS. Implications: Effective treatment of STS requires proper identification and the delivery of protocols that are tailored to the unique ways that STS manifests. This study provides some insights into the utility of the STS-CA in guiding this process and creates STS categories to organize and classify intervention strategies.

show abstract

“…Specifically, the TABS measures disruptions in five psychological need areas, including safety (i.e., I believe I am safe ), trust (i.e., You can’t trust anyone ), esteem (i.e., I have bad feelings about myself ), intimacy (i.e., I feel close to lots of people ), and control (i.e., I feel like I can’t control myself ). Evaluation on the TABS for reliability and validity (Pearlman, 2003; Varra, Pearlman, Brock, & Hodgson, 2008) yielded sound evidence of content, construct, and criterion validity. Reliability is also acceptable, with a Pearson r score of .75, and an internal consistency α score of .96.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting Treatment Attrition for Child Sexual Abuse Victims

DeLorenzi

Daire

Bloom

2016

Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sexually abused children drop out of treatment more frequently than children receiving services for other issues. While researchers suggest that chaotic family dynamics may lead to inflated attrition rates in this population, other factors that potentially contribute to treatment attrition are virtually unknown. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between child and parent characteristics with attrition for sexual abuse victims (N ¼ 132) and their nonoffending caregivers. Results indicate that children with parents who confirmed past or current intimate partner violence were 2.5 times more likely to prematurely terminate from treatment.

show abstract

Factor Analysis of the Trauma and Attachment Belief Scale: A Measure of Cognitive Schema Disruption Related to Traumatic Stress

Cited by 17 publications

References 22 publications

Exploratory factor analysis of the Trauma and Attachment Belief Scale among partners of service members.

Exploratory factor analysis of the Trauma and Attachment Belief Scale among partners of service members.

Diagnostic and Translational Utility of the Secondary Traumatic Stress Clinical Algorithm (STS-CA)

Predicting Treatment Attrition for Child Sexual Abuse Victims

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About