ArticleChild development
Theoretical and Quantitative Disconnect When Modeling Adverse Childhood Experiences Using a Common Factor Framework: An Argument for Causal Indicator Models in Stressor Research.
Article in Child development. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Adversity and adolescent brain development: differential associations with grey and white matter across two longitudinal cohorts.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Toward next-generation stress generation research: Expert consensus methodological guidelines.Journal of psychopathology and clinical science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are highly impactful stressors that increase individuals' risk for a plethora of negative developmental and health outcomes. Furthermore, minoritized groups and under-resourced individuals are at higher risk for ACEs, positioning these stressors as possible mechanisms driving health disparities. Given this fact, a strong methodological foundation is necessary to ensure maximal clinical value. As emphasized by Jensen et al. (https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.14050), this foundation must begin with rigorous ACEs measurement-a goal that requires careful matching between ACEs measures and the scoring procedures used. To amplify their message while advocating for an alternative approach that may better reflect the conceptualization of ACEs, we write this commentary to highlight the merits of causal indicator models as a better match between theory and methodology.
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.