Behavior Management in Young Children Exposed to Trauma: A Case Study of Three Evidence-Based Treatments.

Young children are particularly vulnerable to traumatic events and the development of posttraumatic stress symptoms, including comorbid disruptive behaviors. Fortunately, several evidence-based interventions have been shown to be effective at decreasing both posttraumatic stress symptoms and disruptive behaviors in young children. This paper provides an overview of three such interventions-Child-Parent Psychotherapy (CPP), Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT), and Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT). An illustrative case study is used to compare how each intervention addresses disruptive behaviors, with a focus on theoretical underpinnings, model similarities, and model differences. The models each have empirical evidence for the treatment of disruptive behavior in young children, and therefore, may be appropriate for treating children with a history of trauma exposure and comorbid disruptive behaviors. Child, caregiver, and environmental factors are essential to consider when identifying an evidence-based intervention for this population.

Discrepancies in youth self-report and case file report of maltreatment and association with internalizing and externalizing symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Childhood maltreatment is a potential risk factor for the later development of psychopathology (Jaffee, 2017). However, there is no gold standard for identifying victims of child maltreatment, and when multiple informants - such as case files and youth self-report - are used, these sources often disagree (Cooley & Jackson, 2022). OBJECTIVE: The current study aimed to explore discrepancies between youth self-report and case file report of maltreatment and examine how these discrepancies related to internalizing and externalizing symptoms. PARTICIPANTS/SETTING: Participants were 470 youth living in foster care between the ages of 8 and 18 and their caregivers. METHODS: Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to create novel groups based on informant discrepancies. RESULTS: Agreement between informants was in the poor-to-fair agreement range for all types of maltreatment. Latent class analysis identified a 3-class solution with significant group differences on both externalizing (Χ2 (2, N = 470) = 6.16, p = 0.05) and internalizing symptoms (Χ2 (2, N = 470) = 6.10, p = 0.05). Specifically, those in the "self-report only" class had significantly higher symptoms than those in the "neither informant/case file only" class for both internalizing and externalizing behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Case files and youth self-report of maltreatment are discrepant. Youth self-report of maltreatment history may be more closely linked to psychopathology than case file report of maltreatment. Researchers and practitioners should look to youth self-report rather than relying solely on case files when determining risk for psychopathology.

Informant Discrepancies in Child Maltreatment Reporting: A Systematic Review.

Potential informants on child maltreatment include the youth who has experienced the alleged maltreatment, and the youth's caregivers, social workers and case files. When multiple informants are compared, they often disagree about whether or not a youth has experienced maltreatment. Such determinations are critical as endorsement-or lack of endorsement-of maltreatment can have significant consequences on the child's safety, future living arrangements and referral for treatment and services. The current study provides a systematic review of the literature on informant discrepancies in child maltreatment. Three databases-PsychINFO, Web of Science, and PubMed-were used to identify studies for the review and 13 articles met inclusion criteria. Results showed that more youth tend to report physical, sexual and emotional abuse than seen in case files. By contrast, more case files include neglect than reported by youth. Implications and future directions are discussed.

Adversity Interpreted: A Scoping Review of Adversity Appraisal Measurement.

Although evidence suggests that individuals' appraisals (i.e., subjective interpretations) of adverse or traumatic life events may serve as a mechanism accounting for differences in adversity exposure and psychological adjustment, understanding this mechanism is contingent on our ability to reliably and consistently measure appraisals. However, measures have varied widely between studies, making conclusions about how best to measure appraisal a challenge for the field. To address this issue, the present study reviewed 88 articles from three research databases, assessing adults' appraisals of adversity. To be included in the scoping review, articles had to meet the following criteria: (1) published no earlier than 1999, (2) available in English, (3) published as a primary source manuscript, and (4) included a measure assessing for adults' (over the age of 18) subjective primary and/or secondary interpretations of adversity. Each article was thoroughly reviewed and coded based on the following information: study demographics, appraisal measurement tool(s), category of appraisal, appraisal dimensions (e.g., self-blame, impact, and threat), and the tool's reliability and validity. Further, information was coded according to the type of adversity appraised, the time in which the appraised event occurred, and which outcomes were assessed in relation to appraisal. Results highlight the importance of continued examination of adversity appraisals and reveal which appraisal tools, categories, and dimensions are most commonly assessed for. These results provide guidance to researchers in how to examine adversity appraisals and what gaps among the measurement of adversity appraisal which need to be addressed in the future research.