4.6 Article

Development and Evaluation of a Short Adverse Childhood Experiences Measure

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 52, 期 2, 页码 163-172

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.09.033

关键词

-

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [K12 HD085848] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Clinicians require tools to rapidly identify individuals with significant childhood adversity as part of routine primary care. The goal of this study was to shorten the 11-item Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) measure and evaluate the feasibility and validity of this shortened measure as a screener to identify adults who have experienced significant childhood adversity. Methods: Statistical analysis was conducted in 2015. ACE item responses obtained from 2011-2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data were combined to form a sample of 71,413 adults aged Z18 years. The 11-item Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System ACE measure was subsequently reduced to a two-item screener by maintaining the two dimensions of abuse and household stressors and selecting the most prevalent item within each dimension. Results: The screener included household alcohol and childhood emotional abuse items. Overall, 42% of respondents and at least 75% of the individuals with four or more ACEs endorsed one or both of these experiences. Using the 11-item ACE measure as the standard, a cut off of one or more ACEs yielded a sensitivity of 99%, but specificity was low (66%). Specificity improved to 94% when using a cut off of two ACEs, but sensitivity diminished (70%). There was no substantive difference between the 11-and two-item ACE measures in their strength of association with an array of health outcomes. Conclusions: A two-item ACE screener appropriate for rapid identification of adults who have experienced significant childhood adversity was developed. (C) 2016 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据