IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0146058.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Minimization of Childhood Maltreatment Is Common and Consequential: Results from a Large, Multinational Sample Using the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire

Author

Listed:
  • Kai MacDonald
  • Michael L Thomas
  • Andres F Sciolla
  • Beacher Schneider
  • Katherine Pappas
  • Gijs Bleijenberg
  • Martin Bohus
  • Bradley Bekh
  • Linda Carpenter
  • Alan Carr
  • Udo Dannlowski
  • Martin Dorahy
  • Claudia Fahlke
  • Ricky Finzi-Dottan
  • Tobi Karu
  • Arne Gerdner
  • Heide Glaesmer
  • Hans Jörgen Grabe
  • Marianne Heins
  • Dianna T Kenny
  • Daeho Kim
  • Hans Knoop
  • Jill Lobbestael
  • Christine Lochner
  • Grethe Lauritzen
  • Edle Ravndal
  • Shelley Riggs
  • Vedat Sar
  • Ingo Schäfer
  • Nicole Schlosser
  • Melanie L Schwandt
  • Murray B Stein
  • Claudia Subic-Wrana
  • Mark Vogel
  • Katja Wingenfeld

Abstract

Childhood maltreatment has diverse, lifelong impact on morbidity and mortality. The Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) is one of the most commonly used scales to assess and quantify these experiences and their impact. Curiously, despite very widespread use of the CTQ, scores on its Minimization-Denial (MD) subscale—originally designed to assess a positive response bias—are rarely reported. Hence, little is known about this measure. If response biases are either common or consequential, current practices of ignoring the MD scale deserve revision. Therewith, we designed a study to investigate 3 aspects of minimization, as defined by the CTQ’s MD scale: 1) its prevalence; 2) its latent structure; and finally 3) whether minimization moderates the CTQ’s discriminative validity in terms of distinguishing between psychiatric patients and community volunteers. Archival, item-level CTQ data from 24 multinational samples were combined for a total of 19,652 participants. Analyses indicated: 1) minimization is common; 2) minimization functions as a continuous construct; and 3) high MD scores attenuate the ability of the CTQ to distinguish between psychiatric patients and community volunteers. Overall, results suggest that a minimizing response bias—as detected by the MD subscale—has a small but significant moderating effect on the CTQ’s discriminative validity. Results also may suggest that some prior analyses of maltreatment rates or the effects of early maltreatment that have used the CTQ may have underestimated its incidence and impact. We caution researchers and clinicians about the widespread practice of using the CTQ without the MD or collecting MD data but failing to assess and control for its effects on outcomes or dependent variables.

Suggested Citation

  • Kai MacDonald & Michael L Thomas & Andres F Sciolla & Beacher Schneider & Katherine Pappas & Gijs Bleijenberg & Martin Bohus & Bradley Bekh & Linda Carpenter & Alan Carr & Udo Dannlowski & Martin Dora, 2016. "Minimization of Childhood Maltreatment Is Common and Consequential: Results from a Large, Multinational Sample Using the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0146058
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146058
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146058
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146058&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0146058?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0146058. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.