Cited by 171Child Abuse and TraumaPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchChild Welfare and Adoption

Ein Screeninginstrument für Missbrauch und Vernachlässigung in der Kindheit: der Childhood Trauma Screener (CTS)

Grabe, Hans, Schulz, Andrea, Schmidt, Carsten, Appel, Katja, Driessen, Martin, Wingenfeld, Katja, Barnow, Sven, Spitzer, Carsten +4 more·2012·Psychiatrische Praxis

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of a psychometrically sound screening questionnaire that assesses important dimensions of traumatic experiences during childhood and adolescence in a time-efficient way. Based on the German version of the "Childhood Trauma Questionnaire" (CTQ, 28 items) we developed a five-item self-report childhood trauma screener (CTS) that covers sexual, emotional and physical abuse and emotional and physical neglect. METHOD: The data set of the SHIP-LEGEND study (n = 1668) was used to extract five items of the CTQ that optimally covered the five dimensions and showed a high correlation with the total score. In two validation samples (clinical sample [n = 211] and subjects from the BiDirect study [n = 288]) the psychometric properties of the CTS were evaluated. RESULTS: The correlations between the five CTS Items and the corresponding dimensions from the CTQ were r = 0.55 to 0.87 (p < 0.0001) within the clinical sample. Furthermore, we found high correlations (r = 0.88; p < 0.0001) with the total CTQ score. The internal consistency was 0.757 (Cronbachs α). CONCLUSION: The CTS is a reliable, valid and economic screener for the retrospective assessment of adverse childhood experiences especially in large epidemiological studies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1055/s-0031-1298984

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Grabe, H., Schulz, A., Schmidt, C., Appel, K., Driessen, M., Wingenfeld, K., Barnow, S., Spitzer, C., John, U., Berger, K., Wersching, H., & Freyberger, H.
Affiliations
  • Universitätsmedizin Greifswald (DE)
  • Evangelisches Krankenhaus Bielefeld (DE)
  • Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • Asklepios Fachklinikum Tiefenbrunn (DE)
  • University of Münster (DE)
Venue
Psychiatrische Praxis
Published
2012-03-15
Volume
39
Issue
03
Pages
109-115
ISSN
  • 0303-4259 (ISSN-L)
  • 1439-0876
OpenAlex
W2418173038
Cited by
170
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.81
Type
journal article
Language
de
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychiatrische Praxis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Child Welfare and Adoption
Keywords
childhood trauma, childhood abuse, child neglect, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, physical abuse, emotional neglect, physical neglect, Childhood Trauma Questionnaire, screening tool, psychometric validation, internal consistency, adverse childhood experiences, retrospective evaluation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Mental Disorders, Child, Child Abuse, Child Abuse, Sexual, Female, Germany, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Life Change Events, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult, Gene-Environment Interaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review