Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of Childhood Trauma Questionnaire
Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of Childhood Trauma Questionnaire
复制标题
DOI：
10.5336/medsci.2011-26947
复制
发表时间：
2012-08-01
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Ikikardes, Eda
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sar, Vedat;Ozturk, Erdinc;Ikikardes, Eda
目的：检验土耳其语版儿童创伤问卷(CTQ)的信度和效度。CTQ是一种自我报告工具，旨在评估儿童和青春期的虐待和忽视经历。材料和方法：24例创伤后分离性障碍患者及其一级亲属各50例，与其一级亲属相匹配的非临床对照组50例。对所有参与者进行CTQ分离经验量表(DES)和一种收集儿童创伤经历定性信息的短文工具(CCKKISL)。结果分离性障碍患者平均年龄(平均为24.2；17~39)低于参与研究的家庭成员(平均为40.5；18~70)和与之匹配的非临床组(平均为40.2；20~70)。女性在分离性患者中占大多数(79.2%)，而在其家庭成员和非临床组中这一比例为54.0%。量表的内部一致性和重测信度良好。三组创伤病史分级差异的比较以及与CCKKISL儿童创伤定性报告的一致性评价支持该量表的结构效度。CTQ与DES评分呈正相关。在因子分析中，除躯体忽视分量表外，其余条目均正确分布于各创伤类型。对两个项目进行了修改，在括号中增加了澄清。结论：土耳其语版CTQ具有较好的信度和效度。
Objective: This study is concerned with examining the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ). The CTQ is a self-report instrument designed to evaluate abuse and neglect experiences of childhood and adolescence. Material and Methods: Patients with trauma-related dissociate disorder (n=24), their first-degree relatives (n=50), and non-clinical controls (n=50) matched with the latter group participated in the study. CTQ Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) and a short instrument gathering qualitative information about childhood traumatic experiences (CCKKISL) were administered to all participants. Results Dissociative disorder patients (mean=24.2; 17-39) were younger than their family members who participated the study (mean=40.5;18-70) and the non-clinical group matched with them (mean=40.2; 20-70) in average. Women were in majority among dissociative patients (79.2%) whereas this rate was 54.0% for both their family members and the non-clinical group. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the scale were excellent. A comparison between three study groups with graded differences in trauma histories and an evaluation of the consistency with the qualitative reports of childhood trauma by CCKKISL supported the construct validity of the scale. There was positive correlation between CTQ and DES scores. In factor analysis, all items distributed in the rubrics of predetermined trauma types correctly except those of the physical neglect subscale. Two items were modified by adding clarifications in paranthesis. Conclusion: The Turkish version of the CTQ is reliable and valid as its original form.