Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40203014›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Polish adaptation of 'Maltreatment and Abuse Chronology of Exposure' scale.

Magdalena Chęć, Sylwia Michałowska, Karolina Rachubińska, Krystian Konieczny, Agnieszka Samochowiec

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Magdalena ChęćDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychoprophylaxis, Institute of Psychology, University of Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8666-4905
Sylwia MichałowskaDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychoprophylaxis, Institute of Psychology, University of Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland.
Karolina RachubińskaDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychoprophylaxis, Institute of Psychology, University of Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland.
Krystian KoniecznyDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychoprophylaxis, Institute of Psychology, University of Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9779-0947
Agnieszka SamochowiecDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychoprophylaxis, Institute of Psychology, University of Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdverse childhood experiences, such as abuse, maltreatment or neglect, can lead to many mental disorders and emotional and social difficulties.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to adapt and validate the 'Maltreatment and Abuse Chronology of Exposure' (MACE) questionnaire to Polish socio-cultural conditions. PARTICIPANTS AND

settingThe study involved 330 adult, white people (60.8% women); aged between 18 and 86 years (M =  41.01; SD =  14.67), with and without a psychiatric diagnosis.

methodsConvergent validity was assessed by comparing MACE (PL) scores with the CTQ (Childhood Trauma Questionnaire) and ACE (Adverse Childhood Experience Questionnaire), while predictive validity was determined by examining the relationships between MACE (PL) scores and the SCL-90 (Symptom Checklist-90). The psychometric properties of the scale were assessed using Rasch analysis, which evaluated item fit, difficulty, and person separation. Internal consistency was measured using the Kuder Richardson coefficient (KR-20). The Polish version of MACE demonstrated good reliability, as indicated by high internal consistency (KR-20) and findings from Rasch analysis.

resultsThe Polish version of MACE, after analysis, included a total of 58 items combined into 10 scales. The Polish version of the scale showed high internal consistency, measured using the Kuder-Richardson formula (KR-20). The results of the Polish version of MACE showed strong and positive correlations with the scores of CTQ and ACE. These correlations were particularly evident for the overall MACE scores and subscales such as MACE SUM, MACE Multiplicity, and MACE Duration. Correlations for physical neglect and emotional neglect were moderate but statistically significant (r =  0.49, p <  0.001; r =  0.46, p <  0.001). MACE scores were positively correlated with SCL-90 and ACE results, indicating high predictive validity in relation to psychopathological symptoms. The correlations between MACE and SCL-90 were moderate but significant, suggesting that MACE effectively predicts psychopathological symptoms associated with childhood trauma. Most MACE subscales showed moderate reliability (0.5-0.8), except for the PVA and SEXA subscales, which demonstrated high internal consistency (KR20 >  0.8).

conclusionThe Polish version of MACE demonstrates solid convergent validity, predictive validity, and psychometric reliability, making it a valuable tool for assessing experiences of maltreatment and neglect during childhood in both research and clinical practice. Assessing the history of adverse childhood experiences using the MACE can provide a more precise understanding of how the type and timing of these experiences influence outcomes. This, in turn, sheds light on the mechanisms underlying health and the common pathways contributing to overlapping symptom spectrums. In summary, the MACE appears to be a valuable tool for clinicians and researchers aiming to retrospectively assess the types, timing, and duration of childhood maltreatment experiences during sensitive developmental periods in adulthood.

Indexed as

Adverse Childhood ExperiencesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPolandPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40203014
PMCPMC11981210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.