ArticleJournal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines2025
Do meaningful dimensions of childhood adversity exist? Data-driven evidence from two prospective cohort studies.
Article in Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Understanding adverse childhood experiences within the first decade of the ABCD study: A systematic review.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2026Pooled it
- What we have learned about adolescent mental health and where we are going after a decade with the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is not yet a consensus on the best way to conceptualise adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). We used data-driven methods across two populations to examine (a) if there were meaningful dimensions underlying ACEs and (b) whether dimensions were differentially associated with increased risk of adolescent psychopathology.
methodsParticipants were 18,539 British children from the UK Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) and 11,876 American children from the US Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study (ABCD). A wide range of ACEs (e.g., abuse, neglect, parental psychopathology, peer victimisation) were measured prospectively from infancy to mid-adolescence using interviews and questionnaires. Internalising and externalising symptoms were assessed with child and/or parent reports during adolescence.
resultsOur preregistered exploratory factor analysis revealed four latent dimensions in the MCS (parental threat, deprivation, victimisation, and parental discipline) and ABCD (parental threat, deprivation, victimisation, and traumatic events). All dimensions except deprivation were associated with increased risk for internalising and externalising symptoms. Over and above the other dimensions, victimisation was more strongly associated with internalising (MCS β = .34, 95% CI 0.33-0.36; ABCD β = .11, 95% CI 0.10-0.13) and externalising (MCS β = .31, 95% CI 0.30-0.33; ABCD β = .13, 95% CI 0.11-0.15) symptoms.
conclusionsAcross two distinct populations, we found that ACEs can be captured by common underlying dimensions of parental threat, deprivation, and victimisation, as well as additional sample-specific dimensions. Our findings expand dimensional theories of childhood adversity by suggesting that in addition to threat and deprivation, victimisation is a distinct dimension of adversity that has the strongest associations with adolescent psychopathology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.