ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Development and validation of a measure of early adverse experiences: childhood adversity scale.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Childhood adversities disrupt the healthy development of children and often have long-term effects on their physical and mental health in adulthood. Identifying them is essential; however, the majority of the existing tools do not adequately capture their diversity and complexity. Moreover, although the age at which adversities occur and their subjective impacts are known to be important, many instruments fail to assess these dimensions. Methods: To address these gaps, a new scale was developed based on a review of 300 client files from individuals diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder (DID). The scale items were derived from types of childhood adversity commonly associated with the formation of alternate identities. Psychometric evaluation was conducted using data from three independent samples. Results: Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with the first sample ( Discussion: This suggests that CAS is a reliable and valid tool that both clinicians and researchers can use for a comprehensive assessment of childhood adverseness.
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.