The Symptoms of Trauma Scale (SOTS): Psychometric evaluation and gender differences with adults diagnosed with serious mental illness

The Relationship Between Dissociation and Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: A Scoping Review

Complex post-traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD) has recently been recognized as an official psychiatric diagnosis in ICD-11, after years of research and advocacy in the field. It has been suggested that dissociative symptoms are a major feature of CPTSD. This scoping review aimed to summarize the existing knowledge base on the relationship between dissociation and CPTSD, and to identify relevant research gaps. We searched the two largest and most widely used academic databases (i.e., the Web of Science and Scopus databases) and the ProQuest database and identified original studies published in English relevant to our research questions, namely: (1) Would CPTSD be associated with dissociative symptoms? 2) How common are dissociative symptoms among people with CPTSD? (3) What are the correlates of dissociative symptoms among people with CPTSD? In all, 26 studies were included. We found 10 studies which reported that people with CPTSD scored significantly higher on a dissociation measure than those without CPTSD, and 11 studies reported a positive correlation between CPTSD symptoms and psychoform/somatoform dissociation scores. While very few studies reported the prevalence and correlates of dissociative symptoms among people with CPTSD, there may be a considerable subgroup of people with CPTSD who have clinically significant levels of dissociative symptoms (e.g., 28.6-76.9%). Dissociation may also be associated with other comorbidities (e.g., DSM-IV Axis II features, shame, somatic symptoms) in people with CPTSD. We recommend that more studies are needed to investigate the prevalence of dissociative symptoms among people with CPTSD and examine how these symptoms are associated with other comorbid conditions and clinical needs in this vulnerable group.

Assessment tools for complex post traumatic stress disorder: a systematic review

Appropriate screening tools are required to accurately detect complex post traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD). This systematic review aimed to assess and compare measurement tools. A literature search using key words 'complex post traumatic stress disorder', 'PTSD', and 'assessment' was undertaken on Embase and PsychINFO during February 2022 by two reviewers. Inclusion criteria included full text papers between 2002-2022 which evaluated CPTSD using assessment tools. Exclusion criteria included reviews, editorials, meta-analyses, or conference abstracts. Twenty-two papers met selection criteria. Thirteen studies used the International Trauma Questionnaire (ITQ). Two studies each evaluated CPTSD with the International Trauma Interview (ITI) or Symptoms of Trauma Scale (SOTS). The Developmental Trauma Inventory (DTI), Cameron Complex Trauma Interview (CCTI), Complex PTSD Item Set additional to the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale (COPISAC), Complex Trauma Questionnaire (ComplexTQ), and Scale 8 of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Scale (MMPI) were used by a single study each. The ITQ was the most thoroughly investigated, validated across different populations, and is a convenient questionnaire for screening within the clinical setting. Where self-report measures are inappropriate, the ITI, SOTS, and COPISAC are interview tools which detect CPTSD. However, they require further validation and should be used alongside clinical history and examination.

Trauma measures for use with psychosis populations: A systematic review of psychometric properties using COSMIN

Traumatic events play a key role in the development and course of psychosis. Psychotic symptoms themselves and coercive treatment practices can be inherently traumatic. Hence, reliable and valid methods of assessing trauma and its impact (i.e., Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) symptomology) are essential for use with people with psychosis. Many measures are available to select from, but this is the first review to appraise the psychometric properties of trauma measures to guide decision making regarding instrument use. The review was prospectively registered on Prospero (CRD42022306100). Evaluation of methodological and psychometric quality followed Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidance. Twenty-four articles were eligible, with sixteen trauma measures evaluated. Childhood Trauma Questionnaire- Short Form demonstrated the most robust evidence for assessing experience of trauma. The Trauma and Life Experience (TALE) checklist was the only measure to include specific psychosis and iatrogenic harm items. For PTSD measures, the Symptoms of Trauma Scale and PTSD Symptom Scale- Self Report had the highest quality evidence. Psychometric strengths and weaknesses of various trauma measures are comprehensively evaluated, highlighting future research directions to strengthen the evidence base with emphasis on further evaluation of the TALE, which integrates trauma specific to psychosis.

Title: "Labels Matter: Is it stress or is it Trauma?"

In neuroscience, the term 'Stress' has a negative connotation because of its potential to trigger or exacerbate psychopathologies. Yet in the face of exposure to stress, the more common reaction to stress is resilience, indicating that resilience is the rule and stress-related pathology the exception. This is critical because neural mechanisms associated with stress-related psychopathology are expected to differ significantly from those associated with resilience.Research labels and terminology affect research directions, conclusions drawn from the results, and the way we think about a topic, while choice of labels is often influenced by biases and hidden assumptions. It is therefore important to adopt a terminology that differentiates between stress conditions, leading to different outcomes.Here, we propose to conceptually associate the term 'stress'/'stressful experience' with 'stress resilience', while restricting the use of the term 'trauma' only in reference to exposures that lead to pathology. We acknowledge that there are as yet no ideal ways for addressing the murkiness of the border between stressful and traumatic experiences. Yet ignoring these differences hampers our ability to elucidate the mechanisms of trauma-related pathologies on the one hand, and of stress resilience on the other. Accordingly, we discuss how to translate such conceptual terminology into research practice.

When Sexual Trauma Survivors with Severe Psychiatric Disabilities Experience Institutional Care

Individuals with severe psychiatric disabilities face many challenges from their experience of mental health problems, but also from disenfranchisement, marginalization, and stigmatization from a sociocultural experience. Those who are sexual trauma survivors also have unique challenges and intersecting experiences, which are not historically well understood, acknowledged, or treated in U.S. systems of care. Both in historic and modern mental health systems there have been methods thought of as interventions that have been or are currently reported as traumatizing to those who experience them. This article highlights the specific challenges, needs, and organizational shifts that U.S. systems of care need to be aware of and embark upon in order to provide treatment that is more efficacious with and cognizant of the experiences of those who are sexual trauma survivors. Furthermore, new paradigms for providing mental health treatment are offered in the context of providing trauma-informed as well as trauma treatment to those who are sexual trauma survivors and experience severe psychiatric disabilities.