Empirically-derived dimensions of childhood adversity and cumulative risk: associations with measures of depression, anxiety, and psychosis-spectrum psychopathology

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background: Investigating different approaches to operationalizing childhood adversity and how they relate to transdiagnostic psychopathology is relevant to advance research on mechanistic processes and to inform intervention efforts. To our knowledge, previous studies have not used questionnaire and interview measures of childhood adversity to examine factor-analytic and cumulative-risk approaches in a complementary manner. Objective: The first aim of this study was to identify the dimensions underlying multiple subscales from three well-established childhood adversity measures (the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire, the Childhood Experience of Care and Abuse Interview, and the Interview for Traumatic Events in Childhood) and to create a cumulative risk index based on the resulting dimensions. The second aim of the study was to examine the childhood adversity dimensions and the cumulative risk index as predictors of measures of depression, anxiety, and psychosis-spectrum psychopathology. Method: Participants were 214 nonclinically ascertained young adults who were administered questionnaire and interview measures of depression, anxiety, psychosis-spectrum phenomena, and childhood adversity. Results: Four childhood adversity dimensions were identified that captured experiences in the domains of Intrafamilial Adversity, Deprivation, Threat, and Sexual Abuse. As hypothesized, the adversity dimensions demonstrated some specificity in their associations with psychopathology symptoms. Deprivation was uniquely associated with the negative symptom dimension of psychosis (negative schizotypy and schizoid symptoms), Intrafamilial Adversity with schizotypal symptoms, and Threat with depression, anxiety, and psychosis-spectrum symptoms. No associations were found with the Sexual Abuse dimension. Finally, the cumulative risk index was associated with all the outcome measures. Conclusions: The findings support the use of both the empirically-derived adversity dimensions and the cumulative risk index and suggest that these approaches may facilitate different research objectives. This study contributes to our understanding of the complexity of childhood adversity and its links to different expressions of psychopathology.