Cited by 78Child Abuse and TraumaPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research

Factor structure, reliability, and known groups validity of the German version of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (Short-form) in Swiss patients and nonpatients

Open access
Karos, Kai, Niederstrasser, Nils, Abidi, Latifa, Bernstein, David P., Bader, Klaus·2014·Journal of Child Sexual Abuse

Abstract

The Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-Short Form is the most widely used instrument to assess childhood trauma and has been translated into 10 languages. However, research into validity and reliability of these translated versions is scarce. The present study aimed to investigate the factor structure, internal consistency, reliability, and known-groups validity of the German Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-Short Form (Bernstein & Fink, 1998). Six-hundred and sixty-one clinical and nonclinical participants completed the German Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-Short Form. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assess the 5-factor structure of the original Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-Short Form. To investigate known-groups validity, the confirmatory factor analysis latent factor levels between clinical and nonclinical participants were compared. The original 5-factor structure was confirmed, with only the Physical Neglect scale showing rather poor fit. As a conclusion, the results support the validity and reliability of the German Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-Short Form. It is recommended to use the German Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-Short Form to assess experiences of childhood trauma.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10538712.2014.896840

Cites

18 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The CTQ-SF has satisfactory validity and reliability, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.53 (physical neglect) to 0.91 (sexual abuse).

    “The CTQ-SF has demonstrated satisfactory validity and reliability, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.53 (physical neglect) to 0.91 (sexual abuse) (39, 40).”

    From Timing of imagery rescripting during schema therapy for borderline personality disorder: the LUCY trial (2023) · cites this paper as [39]

    The Reliability section reports Cronbach’s alpha of .53 for Physical Neglect, but .90—not .91—for Sexual Abuse; .91 belongs to Emotional Neglect. The Discussion supports the German CTQ-SF’s overall validity and reliability while noting that Physical Neglect reliability was only fair. (LLM, conf=0.94)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 20 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Aslan, S. H., & Alparslan, Z. N. (1999). The reliability, validity and factor structure of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire among a group of university students. Turkish Journal of Psychiatry , 10 (4), 275-285. Retrieved from http://www.turkpsikiyatri.com/en/default.aspx?modul=summary&id=110
  2. MacMillan, H. L., Fleming, J. E., Trocmé, N., Boyle, M. H., Wong, M., Racine, Y. A.,… Offord, D. R . (1997). Prevalence of child physical and sexual abuse in the community. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association , 278 (2), 131-135.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Karos, K., Niederstrasser, N., Abidi, L., Bernstein, D. P., & Bader, K.
Affiliations
  • KU Leuven (BE)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • University of Basel (CH)
Corresponding author
Karos, Kai
Venue
Journal of Child Sexual Abuse
Published
2014-05-12
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
418-430
ISSN
  • 1053-8712 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-0679
OpenAlex
W2027562847
Cited by
78
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3
FWCI
6.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Journal of Child Sexual Abuse (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DMU Open Research Archive (De Montfort University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Universität Basel
  • Universiteit Maastricht
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Keywords
Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-Short Form, childhood trauma, German translation, factor structure, known-groups validity, internal consistency, physical neglect, psychometric validation
MeSH terms
Adult, Child, Child Abuse, Female, Humans, Inpatients, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Severity of Illness Index, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Switzerland, Reproducibility of Results, Principal Component Analysis, Adult Survivors of Child Abuse

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