↓ Skip to main content

Challenges in the retrospective assessment of trauma: comparing a checklist approach to a single item trauma experience screening question

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Challenges in the retrospective assessment of trauma: comparing a checklist approach to a single item trauma experience screening question
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12888-016-0720-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Souci Frissa, Stephani L Hatch, Nicola T Fear, Sarah Dorrington, Laura Goodwin, Matthew Hotopf

Abstract

Research on trauma and its impact on mental health typically relies on self-reports which can be influenced by recall bias and an individual's subjective interpretation of events. This study aims to compare responses on a checklist of life events with a trauma experience screening question, both of which assessed trauma experience retrospectively. A community sample of adults were asked about life events from a checklist before asking them whether they ever had a trauma experience, i.e. "an event that either puts them or someone close to them at risk of serious harm or death". Less than half of the sample who reported at least one life event on the checklist that qualified as a trauma reported a trauma experience that they perceived put them or close others at risk of serious harm. Women responders, those reporting early life traumas, and a greater number of lifetime trauma events were more likely to report a trauma experience. Current symptoms of Common Mental Disorder did not account for differences in reporting of trauma experiences. Epidemiological approaches which require participants to make subjective judgement on the severity of the trauma experience will capture individual differences that we have shown are influenced by gender and previous trauma experience.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 93 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 24%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 20 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 34 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 10%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Neuroscience 7 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 25 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 February 2016.
All research outputs
#20,328,845
of 22,873,031 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#4,221
of 4,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#334,252
of 397,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#63
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,873,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,700 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 397,455 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.