Test of the trauma outcome process assessment model: One model of individual and environmental factors to explain adjustment.

Abstract

The Trauma Outcome Process Assessment (TOPA) is a theoretical model, based on a large body of empirical research establishing key variables that consistently are associated with a range of outcomes following traumatic events. Although most who experience a traumatic event will initially experience symptoms of distress, most will subsequently recover without intervention. Those responding to the needs of trauma survivors are unable currently to predict at early stages who might benefit from assistance and where to devote resources. In this model, individual variables (e.g., personality) are considered within the context of ecological factors (e.g., family dynamics, social support) to explain mental health outcomes (e.g., recovery, various forms of distress) following traumatic stressor exposure. Analyses in this study revealed the expected relationships among study measures and found that the measures mapped well onto the hypothesized latent constructs of the TOPA model. Using structural equation modeling (SEM) the TOPA performed well, suggesting that the TOPA has utility as a theoretical basis for the identification and treatment of differential mental health outcomes following exposure to a traumatic stressor and lend support to key variables that might be considered to better understand trajectories of recovery and illness.

Beyond Ryff's scale: Comprehensive measures of eudaimonic well‐being in clinical populations. A systematic review

“…The most frequently used instrument was the MHC (Keyes, , , ), which was applied in 10 studies (Bohlmeijer, Lamers, & Fledderus, ; Borja & Callahan, ; Callahan, Borja, Herbert, Maxwell, & Ruggero, ; Fledderus, Bohlmeijer, & Pieterse, ; Fledderus, Bohlmeijer, Pieterse, & Schreurs, ; Fledderus, Bohlmeijer, Smit, & Westerhof, ; McGaffin, Deane, Kelly, & Ciarrochi, ; Salekin, Tippey, & Allen, ; Walker & Lampropoulos, ; Walker‐Williams, van Eeden, & van der Merwe, ). All studies, except one that used a 12‐item version labeled positive emotions – CDS (Salekin et al, ), used the MHC Short Form consisting of 14 items (Bohlmeijer et al, ; Borja & Callahan, ; Callahan et al, ; Fledderus, Bohlmeijer, Smit et al, ; Fledderus, Bohlmeijer, & Pieterse, ; Fledderus et al, ; McGaffin et al, ; Walker & Lampropoulos, ; Walker‐Williams et al, ). These studies were performed in the United States ( n = 4; Borja & Callahan, ; Callahan et al, ; Salekin et al, ; Walker & Lampropoulos, ), South Africa ( n = 1; Walker‐Williams et al, ), the Netherlands ( n = 4; Bohlmeijer et al, ; Fledderus, Bohlmeijer, & Pieterse, ; Fledderus et al, ; Fledderus, Bohlmeijer, Smit et al, ), and Australia ( n = 1; McGaffin et al, ).…”

“…All studies, except one that used a 12‐item version labeled positive emotions – CDS (Salekin et al, ), used the MHC Short Form consisting of 14 items (Bohlmeijer et al, ; Borja & Callahan, ; Callahan et al, ; Fledderus, Bohlmeijer, Smit et al, ; Fledderus, Bohlmeijer, & Pieterse, ; Fledderus et al, ; McGaffin et al, ; Walker & Lampropoulos, ; Walker‐Williams et al, ). These studies were performed in the United States ( n = 4; Borja & Callahan, ; Callahan et al, ; Salekin et al, ; Walker & Lampropoulos, ), South Africa ( n = 1; Walker‐Williams et al, ), the Netherlands ( n = 4; Bohlmeijer et al, ; Fledderus, Bohlmeijer, & Pieterse, ; Fledderus et al, ; Fledderus, Bohlmeijer, Smit et al, ), and Australia ( n = 1; McGaffin et al, ). The instrument has been translated and validated in its English and Dutch versions.…”

“…The instrument has been translated and validated in its English and Dutch versions. A cross‐sectional survey design ( n = 4; Borja & Callahan, ; Callahan et al, ; Fledderus, Bohlmeijer, & Pieterse, ; Walker‐Williams et al, ) was utilized in most of the studies, alternatively, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design ( n = 4; Bohlmeijer et al, ; Fledderus et al, ; Fledderus, Bohlmeijer, Smit et al, ; Walker & Lampropoulos, ). Other designs include uncontrolled trials ( n = 1; Salekin et al, ) and a longitudinal observational design ( n = 1; McGaffin et al, ).…”

Systematic Review about Personal Growth Initiative

“…Studies that investigated psychological well-being as a single-factor dimension also evidenced the positive relationship between this and PGI (Kashubeck-West & Meyer, 2008;Lasun & Odufowokan, 2012;Negovan, 2010;Robitschek, 1999;Shorey et al, 2007) Higher levels of PGI were associated with the presence of higher indices of emotional well-being, social well-being (Negovan, 2010) 2009; Stevic & Ward, 2008); positive mental health (Ogunyemi & Mabekoje, 2007;Vaingankar et al, 2011); and positive affect (Hardin et al, 2007;Robitschek & Keyes, 2009). Consequently, people who had higher levels of PGI were more likely to possess lower levels of negative affect (Hardin et al, 2007), stress (Hardin et al, 2007;Shorey et al, 2007), lower levels of perceived stigma (Sultan, 2011) and more chance of healthily recovering from traumatic experiences (Borja & Callahan, 2009;Callahan et al, 2013).…”

Expressive Arts Therapy with Hospitalized Children: A Pilot Study of Co-Creating Healing Sock Creatures©

“…These factors positively affect trauma outcomes (Callahan, Borja, Herbert, Maxwell, & Ruggero, 2013). It is worth noting that the randomization into experimental groups does not control for the family's own ability to respond to children's needs, as family members typically were with the children at the bedside throughout the therapeutic process.…”