Cited by 1,574Child Abuse and TraumaChild Welfare and AdoptionChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Validity of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire in an Adolescent Psychiatric Population

BERNSTEIN, DAVID P., AHLUVALIA, TARUNA, POGGE, DAVID, HANDELSMAN, LEONARD·1997·Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective To present initial findings on the validity of a recently developed maltreatment inventory, the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ), in a sample of adolescent psychiatric patients.Method Three hundred ninety-eight male and female adolescents (aged 12 to 17 years) admitted to the inpatient service of a private psychiatric hospital were given the CTQ as part of a larger test battery. Structured interviews were also conducted with the primary therapists of 190 of the patients to obtain ratings of abuse and neglect based on all available data, including clinical interviews with patients and their relatives and information from referring clinicians and agencies.Results Principal-components analysis of the CTQ items yielded five rotated factors-emotional abuse, emotional neglect, sexual abuse, physical abuse, and physical neglect-closely replicating the factor structure in an earlier study of adult patients. The internal consistency of the CTQ factors was extremely high both in the entire sample and in every subgroup examined. When CTQ factor scores were compared with therapists' ratings in a series of logistic regression analyses, relationships between the two sets of variables were highly specific, supporting the convergent and discriminant validity of the CTQ. Finally, when therapists' ratings were used as the validity criterion, the CTQ exhibited good sensitivity for all forms of maltreatment, and satisfactory or better levels of specificity.Conclusions These initial findings suggest that the CTQ is a sensitive and valid screening questionnaire for childhood trauma in an adolescent psychiatric inpatient setting.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00004583-199703000-00012

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
BERNSTEIN, D. P., AHLUVALIA, T., POGGE, D., & HANDELSMAN, L.
Affiliations
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
  • Fairleigh Dickinson University (US)
Corresponding author
BERNSTEIN, DAVID P.
Venue
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1997-03
Volume
36
Issue
3
Pages
340-348
ISSN
0890-8567 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2009780891
Cited by
1,574
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 66 · 2025: 107 · 2024: 112 · 2023: 105 · 2022: 131 · 2021: 93 · 2020: 105 · 2019: 97 · 2018: 76 · 2017: 69 · 2016: 69 · 2015: 59 · 2014: 67 · 2013: 60 · 2012: 47
FWCI
15.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Child Welfare and Adoption
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
Childhood Trauma Questionnaire, child abuse, adolescent psychiatric inpatients, factor structure, convergent and discriminant validity, emotional abuse, emotional neglect, sexual abuse, physical abuse, physical neglect, abuse screening, therapist ratings
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Mental Disorders, Child, Child Abuse, Child Abuse, Sexual, Female, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Logistic Models

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