The Trauma Outcome Process Assessment Model: A Structural Equation Model Examination of Adjustment

Abstract

This investigation sought to operationalize a comprehensive theoretical model, the Trauma Outcome Process Assessment, and test it empirically with structural equation modeling. The Trauma Outcome Process Assessment reflects a robust body of research and incorporates known ecological factors (e.g., family dynamics, social support) to explain internalizing distress (e.g., anxiety, depression), externalizing distress (e.g., aggression), and recovery outcomes following traumatic events. Results revealed that expected relationships among the variables were significantly related in the expected direction, and the measures mapped well onto the expected latent constructs. Following optimal specification of the relationships within the Trauma Outcome Process Assessment, structural equation modeling revealed strong support for the Trauma Outcome Process Assessment as a comprehensive identification and treatment model to explain the differential outcomes of those exposed to traumatic stressors.

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, ).…”

Trauma Outcome Process Assessment (TOPA) Model: An Ecological Paradigm for Treating Traumatized Sexually Abusive Youth

“…There has been some research in recent years to validate some of the constructs of the Trauma Outcome Process paradigm (e.g., Borja & Callahan, 2009). Such research is definitely promising, and similar efforts by other researchers are encouraged.…”

“…Borja and Callahan (2009) asserted that TOPA surpasses other trauma models by "explicitly including both affective and cognitive symptoms among the negative effects of trauma exposure and encompassing a range of outcomes beyond pathology" (p. 2).…”

How Young Refugees Cope with Conflict in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Urban Schools

“…The Life Exposure Checklist (LEC, Gray et al, ) measured the number of potentially traumatic events participants had been exposed to. The LEC has sound psychometric properties, is relatively stable over time, and correlates with existing measures of trauma (Borja & Callahan, ). In this study, the LEC was simplified to include only two options for each item, (a) “This happened to me or I saw this happen” or (b) “This happened to someone close to me.” Inspection of inter‐item correlations revealed that students responded consistently to items, for example, the correlation between two items of exposure to war zone and exposure to weapons was r = 0.45 (Boyle, ).…”