4.5 Article

Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-Short Form (CTQ-SF) among undergraduates and depressive patients

Journal

CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT
Volume 91, Issue -, Pages 102-108

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.03.009

Keywords

Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; Measurement equivalence; Factor structure; Reliability; Validity

Funding

  1. National Science and Technology Project for Professional Basic Research [2015FY111600]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation [81370034]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-Short Form (CTQ-SF) is a self-report questionnaire that retrospectively provides screening for a history of childhood abuse and neglect, and which is widely used throughout the world. The current study aimed to examine the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the CTQ-SF. Methods: Participants included 3431 undergraduates from Hunan provinces and 234 depressive patients from psychological clinics. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to examine how well the original five-factor model fit the data and the measurement equivalence of CTQ-SF across gender. Internal consistency was also evaluated. Results: The five-factor model achieved satisfactory fit (Undergraduate sample TLI = 0.925, CFI = 0.936, RMSEA = 0.034, SRMR = 0.046; depressive sample TLI = 0.912, CFI = 0.923, RMSEA = 0.044, SRMR = 0.062). Measurement invariance of the five-factor model across gender was supported fully assuming different degrees of invariance. The CTQ-SF also showed acceptable internal consistency and good stability. Conclusion: The current study provides that the Chinese version of the Childhood Trauma questionnaire-short form has good reliability and validity among Chinese undergraduates and depressive samples, which also indicates that the CTQ-SF is a good tool for child trauma assessment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available