Citation

Smith N, Lam D, Bifulco A, Checkley S. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2002; 37(12): 572-579.

Affiliation

Health Services Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny park, Denmark Hill, London SE5 8AF, UK.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2002, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1007/s00127-002-0589-9

PMID

12545234

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Interview measures for investigating adverse childhood experiences, such as the Childhood Experience of Care and Abuse (CECA) instrument, are comprehensive and can be lengthy and time-consuming. A questionnaire version of the CECA (CECA.Q) has been developed which could allow for screening of individuals in research settings. This would enable researchers to identify individuals with adverse early experiences who might benefit from an in-depth interview. This paper aims to validate the CECA.Q against the CECA interview in a clinical population. METHODS: One hundred and eight patients attending an affective disorders service were assessed using both the CECA interview and questionnaire measures. A follow-up sample was recruited 3 years later and sent the questionnaire. The questionnaire was also compared with the established Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI). RESULTS: Agreement between ratings on the interview and questionnaire were high. Scales measuring antipathy and neglect also correlated highly with the PBI. The follow-up sample revealed the questionnaire to have a high degree of reliability over a long period of time. CONCLUSIONS: The CECA.Q appears to be a reliable and valid measure which can be used in research on clinical populations to screen for individuals who have experienced severe adversity in childhood.

Language: en