ArticlePloS one2026
The sensitivity of TANDEM - A new measure of trauma competence.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite international standards outlining the competence areas to be included in educational programs on trauma-informed care, a Norwegian expert group identified a lack of tools to measure the learning outcomes of such programs adapted to the Norwegian context. In response, they developed the Trauma and Development Education Monitor (TANDEM). This study examines the sensitivity of the instrument.
methodsThe study is based on pre- and post-test survey responses to TANDEM's 55 items, covering the domains of Readiness, Agency, Reflexivity, Knowledge, Skills, and Work Culture, collected from 370 students across four cohorts enrolled in a three-week trauma course at Oslo Metropolitan University. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with measurement invariance analyses were conducted to evaluate configural, weak, strong, and strict invariance in the reflective dimensions Readiness, Agency, and Reflexivity. Latent growth curve (LGC) models were then applied to analyze changes in outcome scores from pre- to post-program. Finally, LGC levels and changes in outcomes were predicted by participant background variables, i.e., workplace type, target age group, role type, work seniority, and prior trauma training.
findingsTANDEM demonstrated sensitivity in detecting significant increases in scores from before to after the course, both for the instrument as a whole and across all domains, most notably for Knowledge and Skills. Some measurement invariance issues were identified in the Agency and Reflexivity domains, indicating interpretation problems. Significant pre-post changes for the total instrument were observed regardless of students' workplace type, target age group and work seniority, but with greater improvements among those in non-problem focused role types and with less prior trauma training. IMPLICATIONS: Overall, TANDEM shows promise as a tool for supporting the implementation, evaluation, and development of trauma competence programs in health and social care contexts. Future developments should test TANDEM across diverse educational, professional, and cultural groups, increase variance in the Readiness domain, refine and validate the domains, and validate the instrument against independent, performance-based competence measures.
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.