Exploring the test-retest differences of self-reported adverse childhood experiences among adolescents in residential treatment

Abstract

The Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) Questionnaire is one of the most widely used assessments for trauma exposure and adversity experienced during the first 18 years of life (Felitti et al., 1998; Kia-Keating et al., 2019). While the ACE Questionnaire has shown to have good reliability and validity, inconsistencies have been demonstrated for the test-retest form of reliability (MacKenzie et al., 2005; Pinto et al., 2014; Zanotti et al., 2018). To address the lack of consensus on the test-retest reliability of the ACE Questionnaire and the appropriateness for use with adolescents, the current study examined test-retest reliability of the ACE measure for a small group of adolescents in residential treatment. Participants (n = 20) completed the ACE during week 1 and were later assessed at week 9. The test-retest reliability of the ACE was very high (r = 0.913), thereby supporting the overall reliability of the ACE questionnaire and its effectiveness in identifying baseline trauma. However, the results indicate that adolescents might not fully understand their past trauma experiences prior to receiving trauma-focused treatment. Potential explanations of unreliable reporting of ACEs, counseling implications and recommendations for multiple administrations are discussed.

Keywords:

• ACEs
• adolescents
• test–retest
• reliability

Disclosure of interest

Authors declare that they have no conflicts to report.

Ethical standards and informed consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation [institutional and national] and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

Notes

1 Results of the McNemar tests were not included as they were not statistically significant. Tables are available upon request.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by a Memphis Research Consortium Grant (Grant #:232000) to the University of Memphis in partnership with the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. This research was also supported by the University of Memphis College of Education Faculty Research Grant and the CORNET Award from UTHSC and the University of Memphis.