|
Abstract
|
BACKGROUND: Recent ACE research proposed items to assess ACE dimensions, such as the frequency or timing of adverse events, that can be added to the original ACE-Study Questionnaire.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of our study was to pilot-test the refined ACE-Dimensions Questionnaire (ACE-DQ) to determine its predictive validity and compare scoring approaches. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Cross-sectional online survey via MTurk with U.S. adults to collect data on the ACE-Study Questionnaire and the newly developed ACE dimension items, and mental health outcomes.
METHODS: We compared ACE exposure by assessment approach and their associations with depression outcomes. We used logistic regression to compare the predictive validity of different ACE scoring approaches for depression outcomes.
RESULTS: Participants (n = 450) were on average 36 years old, half were female, and the majority was White. Almost half reported depressive symptoms; approximately two-thirds had experienced ACEs. Participants reporting depression had significantly higher ACE scores. Using the ACE index, participants with ACEs were 45 % more likely to report depression symptoms than participants without ACEs (OR 1.45, 95%CI 1.33-1.58). When using perception-weighted scores, participants had smaller, yet significant odds of reporting depression outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the ACE index may overestimate the impact of ACEs and the effects of ACEs on depression. Adding the comprehensive set of conceptual dimensions to more fully weigh participants' experience of adverse events can increase the accuracy of ACE measurement but will also increase participant burden considerably. We recommend including items to assess a person's perception of each adverse event for improved screening efforts and in research focused on cumulative adversity.
Language: en |