Abstract
Vicarious traumatization (VT) refers to harmful changes that occur in professionals’ views of themselves, others, and the world, as a result of exposure to the graphic and/or traumatic material of their clients. Secondary traumatic stress (STS) refers to a set of psychological symptoms that mimic post-traumatic stress disorder, but is acquired through exposure to persons suffering the effects of trauma. Numerous studies have sought to identify correlates of both VT and STS, yet there still exists a lack of conceptual clarity in the literature about VT, STS, and the related constructs of burnout and compassion fatigue. This has made it difficult to use the literature to inform practice and training. This study clarifies the definitions of VT and STS and uses levels of evidence analysis to synthesize the research findings to date. Originally planned as a meta-analysis, the study was re-designed as methodological issues in the literature became apparent that would call into question the validity of a meta-analysis. The current method of analysis documents the degree of evidence for the most commonly researched factors that have been researched as possible contributors to the development of both VT and STS, synthesizing the findings of published research and dissertations written in the English language from 1994–2003. Findings indicate that persuasive evidence exists for personal trauma history, reasonable evidence for perceived coping style, and some evidence for supervision experiences, as important predictors of VT. Persuasive evidence for amount of exposure to trauma material and reasonable evidence for personal trauma history are indicated as important in the development of STS. Limitations of the current study and directions for further research are discussed.
∗An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 112th Annual Conference of the American Psychological Association, 31 July 2004, Honolulu Hawaii, USA
Acknowledgement
This project was supported in part by a grant from the Faculty of Applied Arts, Dublin Institute of Technology.
Notes
∗An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 112th Annual Conference of the American Psychological Association, 31 July 2004, Honolulu Hawaii, USA