Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Page 1/14
Pilot Study of Parental Alienation Items in the Adverse Childhood Events Scale
Joshua Marsden ( Joshua.Marsden@colostate.edu )
Colorado State University
Luke Saunders
Colorado State University
Jennifer J. Harman
Colorado State University
Research Article
Keywords: Parental Alienation, Adverse Childhood Experiences, Factor Analysis
Posted Date: April 3rd, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2743945/v1
License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License
Page 2/14
Abstract
Background
Adver Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and Parental Alienation (PA)are forms of adverse events negatively affecting children globally. The current study was to
identify a revised ACEs measure that includes a screening item for PA.
Methods
A total of 231 undergraduate students, ages 18 to 37, were surveyed for this analysis. A factor analyses was performed to identify what PA item, out of four,
would correlate most strongly with existing ACEs scale items. Convergent and divergent validity was assessed. An exploratory factory analyses was
conducted to identify factor structure of scale items and a conrmatory factory analysis of extracted factors was used to assess model t.
Results
Over half (60%) of the sampled population reported at least one ACEs item. All four PA items were signicantly correlated with converging constructs (r = .68, p
< .01). Out of four PA items, one PA item signicantly outperformed the other three items in relation to convergent validity and was used to create a new ACEs-
PA scale item (r = .33, p < .01). A two factor solution was identied with the new PA item loading, accounting for 35% of the variance, explaining more variance
in both outcomes (R2 = .43 and R2 = .16) than the original ACEs scale when comparing the adjusted R2 values (R2 = .35 and R2 = .13 ).
Conclusion
Within the population, the new PA item factored signicantly with existing ACEs, suggesting the capture of an additional adverse childhood experience.
Introduction
Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are traumatic events occurring prior to the age of 18, having lasting negative effects on health and wellbeing.1–4
Exposure to ACEs is associated with poor mental health,5–12 negative physical health outcomes13–17 and engagement in risky behaviors 6–8,13,18
Accumulation of multiple adversities during childhood has compounding negative effects on these outcomes,13,19 and poorer socioeconomic outcomes into
adulthood.20,21 ACEs are common in the U.S. population,22 with 30–60% of the population experiencing at least one ACE.4,23−26
Experiencing violence, abuse, or neglect are ACEs that have garnered considerable research27–34 and witnessing ACEs have short- and long-term negative
effects.4 Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress (CAPRD) is recognized as a condition in the DSM-V that refers to children who have been to, or
pulled into parental .35 Parental distress can involve consistent disparagement of a parent by the child’s other parent, being witness to parental conicts and
intimate partner violence, and pressure to ally with a parent against the other.36 Children affected by this parental relationship distress experience negative
psychosomatic, cognitive, affective and psychosocial effects.37
Coercively Controlling Abuse And Parental Alienation
Parental alienation (PA) is an outcome associated with coercively controlling abuse in the family.38,39 The use of children by one parent to control and
manipulate the other parent is a commonly used abusive strategy 40–42 that has negative short- and long-term effects on children.43–50 Manipulating a child
to reject a parent is not easily accomplished, as children who are severely maltreated by a parent often engage in attachment-enhancing rather than
destructive behaviors 51,52 To weaponize a child against a parent, the coercively controlling parent engages in parental alienating behaviors (PABs) designed
to make the child believe their rejected parent never loved them, abandoned them, and/or is unt or unsafe.53 If the child believes and internalizes these
falsehoods, they align with the alienating parent, reject their other parent for reasons that are unjustied, exaggerated, or false, and become “alienated” from
the rejected parent.54,55
There are over 50 studies published through 2020 that examined the PABs56 including such behaviors as gaslighting, blocking communication, gatekeeping,
denigration among others.53 PABs are a form of family violence because they are abusive for both children and the targeted parent.37,57
Parental Alienation As An Adverse Childhood Experience
Alienated children often experience or witness other forms of abuse in their families, such as intimate partner violence,58–61 and child physical and sexual
abuse the alienating parent.62–65 Exposure to PABs is associated with low self-esteem, substance abuse disorders, insecure attachment, anxiety, and
depression66–72 Alienated children are likely to experience internalizing and externalizing problems,73 and adults who experienced PA as children describe
experiencing PTSD, attention problems, disassociation, eating disorders and panic attacks.74
Despite considerable research on the causes and negative consequences of PA,53 PA has not been scientically established as an ACE. The current study’s
purpose is to develop and test potential items for inclusion in the ACEs questionnaire that can be used to screen individuals who have or were alienated from a
Page 3/14
parent as a child. The inclusion of such items in the ACEs questionnaire can facilitate greater research on the topic.
The Current Study
It is estimated that about 9% of the US adult population are currently being alienated from their child(ren) by the other parent, and PA affects an estimated
3.5million children within the US.75 An item that effectively screens for PA within the ACEs questionnaire can offer more accurate estimates of the prevalence
of PA and would t well into the existing emotional abuse/neglect or household dysfunction factors.
This study involved a test of four pre-registered research questions (https://osf.io/a3kgc/?view_only=6e75fd3566724b1580c35608883646d3). First, to
examine which potential PA-ACEs questions would correlate most strongly with existing validated measures of PA. Second and third, whether the new ACEs
item correlates with pre-existing ACE scale items and whether the inclusion of the new proposed item ts into the existing factor structure of the ACEs
questionnaire. Fourth, to examine whether the new scale explains more variance in psychological outcomes than the original ACEs scale.
Methods
Participants
Undergraduate students (N= 231) were surveyed for a study on ACEs and the potential buffering role of domestic animals (pets) on outcomes. The current
study focused exclusively on the development and testing of a revised ACEs measure that includes a screening item for PA. Participant age ranged from 18 to
37 years old (M = 19.86, SD = 2.64) and 80% were women. Respondents were mainly white (79%) and non-Hispanic (81%).
Procedure
The survey was administered via Qualtrics (Appendix A). The current project’s analytic strategy and hypotheses were preregistered on Open Science
Framework (https://osf.io/a3kgc/?view_only=6e75fd3566724b1580c35608883646d3).
Measures
ACEs Questionnaire
Original ACEs. All 10 original ACEs were assessed (see table 1 for psychometric properties of the ACE module). Each item was constructed as a dummy
variable with a score of 0 (never experienced) and 1 (experienced it at any time in their life).
Parental Alienation Items for the ACEs Scale. The third author, and PA subject matter expert, created four items that could potentially be used to screen
participants who may be experiencing, or were alienated as a child. Three items were written to capture inuence and alignment with a parent against another
parent, and one was related to a parent being derogated by the other parent (Appendix B).
Convergent Validity
There are several measures assessing manifestations of PA that are not evident among children who have been abused in other ways.56 We used the
following two measures for this study:
Baker Child Alienation Questionnaire (BAQ). The Baker Child Alienation Questionnaire (BAQ)76 consists of seven items asking respondents to report whether or
how often they exhibited each of the eight behavioral characteristics of PA toward each parent, as described by Gardner78. Responses for each item were
coded as “alienation consistent” (1) if the responses for the mother and father items were at opposite extremes of the scale, and 0 (alienation inconsistent) if
the scores on the items were not extreme. This scoring resulted in 14 which were then totaled to make an overall sum score (α = .73).
Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire(PARQ). The short version of the adult PARQ is a 24-item, self-report questionnaire that assesses adults’
retrospective remembrances of acceptance or rejection towards each parent in their childhood.77 The PARQ measures splitting (i.e., describing one parent as
“all good” and the other as “all bad”) by quantifying the strong acceptance towards an alienating parent accompanied by the strong rejection of the alienated
parent. Each item is scored on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from (4) “almost always true” to (1) “almost never true.” The PARQ demonstrates reliability across
numerous samples in the US, Australia, and Italy.79-81
The PARQ-Gap score asses the difference between realistic estrangement and PA. The gap score is the difference between the PARQ score for each parent.
Bernet et al52 found that using a PARQ-Gap score of 90 (PARQ long form) as a cut-off point was 99% accurate when distinguishing alienated from non-
alienated children. For the short form, a PARQ-Gap score of 29 or higher reliably distinguishes severely alienated from non-alienated children (RP Rohner PhD,
personal communication, June 18, 2020).
Discriminant Validity
Two measures testing discriminant validity of the proposed items were included. Protective factors, such as social support, can buffer the negative effects of
ACEs and are associated with positive life outcomes,82 and low social support in adulthood is associated with abuse and neglect during childhood.83We
predicted that social support would have a small and negative correlation with the PA items. The relationship between PA and positive co-parenting behaviors
has not been studied, and we predicted they would have a negative correlation because PABs are not positive or supportive of the other parent.
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support(MSPSS). The MSPSS84 is a 12-item self-report scale measuring subjectively assessed social support.
Three subscales address different sources of support: Family, friends, and signicant other. Items are scored on a 7-point scale ranging from (7) Very strongly
Page 4/14
agree to (1) Very strongly disagree. This measure has good reliability, moderate construct validity, and strong factorial validity for all subscales.84 The MSPSS
is one of the most extensively validated measures worldwide.85 The scale had excellent internal consistency (α = .94).
Positive Co-Parenting Behavior for Mothers & Fathers(PCPB). Ten items were created assessing positive co-parenting behaviors. These self-report items,
scored on a 5-point Likert scale, range from (1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree. Internal consistency for this scale in this study was excellent (α = .92).
Criterion Validity
Brief Symptoms Inventory(BSI). The BSI86 is used to identify clinically relevant psychological symptoms in adolescents and adults consisting of 53 items
covering nine symptom dimensions and three global indices of distress. Respondents ranked each feeling item by intensity of distress during the past seven
days on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely), and is reliable with an average internal consistency of α >.70 and test-retest reliability
ranging from .68 to .91.87-90The BSI has been tested in relation to the ACEs scale in previous research,91-93and had excellent internal consistency,α = .98.
Benevolent Childhood Experiences(BCEs). Ten items were constructed assessing BCEs that may have served as protective factors for children at the time they
experienced any traumatic experiences. These items were created by the third author and two colleagues, one a clinical social worker and the other a marriage
and family therapist. Items were coded as (0) “no” and (1) “yes”. Examples of questions included “When you were growing up, during your rst 18 years of life
did you have at least one caregiver with whom you felt safe” and “Was there an adult (not a parent/caregiver) who could provide you with support or advice?”
Analytic Plan
Data were examined for missing values, and continuous data were checked for outliers and deviations with none found. Psychometric properties of the ACEs
questionnaire and four new PA items were analyzed by assessing content validity (i.e., convergent and discriminant measures), construct validity (i.e., relating
the new PA item to the ACEs questionnaire), the factor structure of the ACEs scale with the new PA item, and criterion validity (i.e., relating the new PA item to
similar outcomes that are used with the ACEs scale). All analyses used R (R Core Team, 2022) and various packages.
Results
Over half the sample (60%) reported exposure to at least one original ACE item. Commonly endorsed ACEs were living with a household member with mental
illness or one who attempted suicide (30%), parental separation or divorce (24%), and emotional abuse (24%).
Research Question #1: Content Validity
Assessing content validity, new PA items were correlated with measures of similar constructs (convergent validity) and dissimilar constructs (discriminant
validity) using Pearson’s R with cor() from the stats package and complete observations only (Table 2). All new PA items were positively correlated with PARQ-
Gap and BAQ scores, demonstrating convergent validity, and were negatively correlated with MSPSS and PCPB scores, demonstrating discriminant validity.
The PARQ-Gap scores signicantly and positively correlated with BAQ sum scores (r = .60, p < .01). Results indicate that although the newly created items were
positively and signicantly related to the PARQ-Gap and BAQ measures, item #2 had the strongest correlation, “Do you have a parent or caregiver that you
often feel you want nothing to do with? Or a parent or caregiver who you dislike and would rather not spend any time with, while at the same time prefer to be
with your other parent?” (r = .68, p < .01 and r= .33, p < .01 respectively). This item captures both the child’s strong rejection and coinciding alignment with
different parents, which is an important differentiating feature of alienated children and is not reected in the other items written to capture the behaviors of
the parents. The second item was the most negatively correlated with the MSPSS (r = -.38, p < .01) and the PCPB (r = -.37, p < .01) demonstrating discriminant
validity from those constructs. We continued our remaining analyses using only item #2 creating the new ACEs-PA item scale (Appendix C).
Research Question #2: Construct Validity
We assessed construct validity by calculating the average inter-item tetrachoric correlations of ACEs with the new ACEs-PA item using polychoric() from the
psych package. This analysis showed how strongly related to the overall ACEs measure the new item was (Table 3). No items were too weakly or strongly
correlated with the new item. The results indicated that besides capturing PA, the new item was related to other items assessing ACEs but was distinct enough
to be its own item.
Research Question #3: Factor Structure Fit
Internal consistency was assessed with ordinal alpha.94 To explore factor structure, we conducted a parallel analysis to determine the suggested number of
factors using a scree plot. We conducted an EFA in a random half of the sample (N = 115) based on the number of factors determined from the scree plot and
used the extracted factors to conduct a CFA in the other half (N = 116).
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), We checked data factorability through the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) statistic. The tetrachoric correlation matrix was
entered into analyses for a weighted-least-squares extraction EFA. Using oblique rotation (“oblimin”) we assumed the factors would covary, and used the scree
test to decide on the maximum number of factors. We adjusted the number of factors until they had at least three items with factor loadings of ≥ .30. In
choosing among solutions, we tried to make sure that factors were conceptually coherent and to minimize the number of items with low communality values
(< .70) and high loadings on more than one factor. The KMO measure was satisfactory at 0.82 as was Bartlett’s test of sphericity, χ2(55) = 614.26, p < .001. To
test scale internal consistency, we calculated the ordinal alpha based on the polychoric correlation matrix resulting in excellent internal consistency (11 items,
α = .92). The scree plot suggested three or fewer factors. (Figure 1).
Page 5/14
Analyses with three and two factors indicated that a two-factor solution yielded the most parsimonious t. Factor 1 consists of three items describing violent
behavior, emotional abuse, and neglect and was labeled Abuse/Neglect. Factor 2, labeled Household Dysfunction, consisted of seven items assessing
disturbances in the childhood home environment such as family member substance use, parental separation or divorce, and parental incarceration. Item 3
was dropped from our nal analysis as it was the only item to load onto its own factor (sexual abuse). The new PA item loaded most strongly onto the
household dysfunction factor. The two factors collectively accounted for 35% of the variance in the remaining data (Table 4).
Conrmatory Factor Analysis. We used the extracted factors to conduct a conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) on raw ACEs data using the lavaan package. The
weighted least square means and variance estimator was used to conduct the analysis of binary endogenous measures. Model t was assessed on three
goodness-of-t indicators appropriate for binary indicators: The comparative t index (CFI), the robust value of the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA), and the robust value of the chi-square. A CFI of over .90 and an RMSEA of less than .08 were considered acceptable for model t.29 Model t was
further examined through factor loadings of the indicators onto the latent variables. To validate these results, we conducted a CFA. The determination of
model t was based on a comparison of the t indices obtained from CFA with the suggested cutoff values for the CFI, TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR indices.95-
97The model results are presented in Figure 2. The two-factor model demonstrated adequate t χ2 (34) = 72.24, p <. 0001, CFI and TLI < .90, RMSEA = .099,
and SRMR > .05.
Research Question 4: Criterion Validity and Greater Explanation of Variance
We tested to what extent the new ACEs-PA scale was related to the BSI and the BCE using multiple regression. We compared the adjusted R2 values to
determine if the ACEs-PA scale explained more of the variance than the original scale (see Tables 1 – 4).
The ACEs-PA scale explained more variance in both outcomes than the original ACEs scale when comparing the adjusted R2 values (R2 = .43 and R2 = .16 and
R2 = .35 and R2= .13 respectively). These results suggest that the ACEs-PA scale shows promise at explaining more of the negative outcomes associated with
ACEs than the original measure, as well as connect PA to these previously studied relationships.
Discussion
The ACE questionnaire was developed in response to the growing need to assess and further understand the prevalence and impact of child abuse and
household environmental factors on public health outcomes. PA is an outcome of an unacknowledged form of family violence37 that is garnering
considerable research support over the last few decades.56 The purpose of the current study was to examine whether a new item that can screen for PA could
enhance the existing ACEs measure to aid in research and prevention services.
Our rst research question tested which of the four items created to screen for PA would have the highest association with two validated measures of PA. The
item with the strongest correlation captured both the rejection of an alienated parent and the alignment with the preferred parent. This item was negatively
associated with the perceived social support and positive co-parenting behaviors measures, demonstrating discriminant validity. We examined the content
validity of the new ACE-PA item after being added to the original scale. The new item correlated signicantly with the other existing items, but not enough to
indicate that it was too similar. The ACE-PA item was a related but distinct item in the new measure.
We assessed whether and how the new ACE-PA item t into the factor structure of the original ACE scale. An EFA and CFA found support for a two-factor
structure, with the new ACE-PA item tting into the household dysfunction subscale. This is not surprising, as PA is a product of an abusive family
dynamic.39,60
Including the ACE-PA item in the new ACEs measure explained more of the variance in outcomes commonly measured in ACEs research: The BSI and the
BCE.86 The BSI is used widely to assess psychological distress and psychiatric symptoms. Past research demonstrates that ACEs and PABs are associated
with increased risk of negative mental health outcomes such as PTSD and depression.9,18 ,51,66–68,70−72,98−100 Including a new item to screen for this particular
outcome can capture more variance in childhood adversity outcomes. Given the new ACE-PA item loaded on the family dysfunction subscale, the inclusion of
the item improved the explanation of BCE variance, as alienated children often experience tremendous loss of autonomy, identity, and support during
childhood.101
Limitations
We relied exclusively on self-report data which can be inuenced by emotional reactions to the sensitive nature of ACE survey items, retrospective bias, and/or
coping developed in response to trauma. We sampled young adults in a university indicating our ndings may limit some generalizability, yet as respondents
are recently out of their caregivers’ homes, their retrospection is potentially more honest and/or accurate than older adults who might be further removed from
these experiences. However, many university students are alienated children, and this scale would benet this population. Replication studies can test whether
other items indicative of PA would perform psychometrically better than the item we created for this study, and whether the addition of such items would
change the factor structure of the scale.
There are questions regarding conceptual issues with the ACEs scale, such as how the ACEs assigns individuals into binary categories regarding adversities
(experienced vs not experienced). While this approach is useful from a screening perspective, there is potential for false positives and it fails to capture the
severity or spectrum of experiences. Future research should include measurement of perceived severity as well as timing and duration of experience.
Conclusions
Page 6/14
The ACE module has been used with the BRFSS (Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System),135 used by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. If an
item indicating exposure to PA were to include an ACE module like the BRFSS, we could better estimate the prevalence of PA, measure it in a population, and
assess its relationship with additional mental and physical health outcomes on a scale that PA research has yet to attain. The results of our study indicate
that inclusion of the newly created item can effectively explain more variance in negative outcomes for individuals who experienced childhood adversity.
Finding that a new item measuring PA ts well into the existing factor structure of the ACEs scale as household dysfunction indicates its usefulness in
capturing another adverse experience. PA has yet to be studied in the ACEs context, making this a novel investigation of a family dynamic that affects millions
of children.
Abbreviations
ACEs Adverse Childhood Experiences
CAPRD Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress
PA Parental Alienation
PABs Parental Alienating Behaviors
BAQ Baker Child Alienation Questionnaire
PARG Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire
MSPSS Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support
PCPB Positive Co-Parenting Behavior for Mothers & Fathers
BSI Brief Symptoms Inventory
BCEs Benevolent Childhood Experiences
EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis
KMO Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin
CFA Conrmatory Factor Analysis
CFI Comparative Fit Index
RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
BRFSS Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate. The Colorado State University’s Institutional Review Board approved this study (ref: #2142). Participants were
informed that participation was voluntary and anonymous and informed consent was required before proceeding. Students were given research participation
credit upon completion.
Consent for publication Not applicable
Availability of data and materials The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available on Open Science Framework,
https://osf.io/a3kgc/?view_only=6e75fd3566724b1580c35608883646d3
Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests
Funding This project was not supported by any sponsors. The original data collection by the 3rd author was internally funded by Colorado State University for
independent research.
Authors contributions All the authors (JM, LS, JH) contributed to the design of the study, and the writing and revisions of the manuscript. Author JH collected
the original data. Author LS conducted the statistical analyses in the manuscript. All authors read and approved the nal manuscript.
Acknowledgments Not applicable
References
1. Abe Y, Sirichokchatchawan W, Sangkomkamhang U, Satthapisit S, Maes M. Adverse childhood experiences combined with emotional and physical abuse
by the partner predict antenatal depression.
J Affect Disord
. 2022 Feb 1;298(Pt A):194-201. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2021.10.099.
Page 7/14
2. Anda R F. The health and social impact of growing up with alcohol abuse and related adverse childhood experiences: The human and economic costs of
the status quo.
Nacoa.net
. 2006; Accessed January 30, 2023. http://www.nacoa.net/pdfs/Anda%20NACoA%20Review_web.pdf
3. Anda RF, Butchart A, Felitti VJ, Brown DW. Building a framework for global surveillance of the public health implications of adverse childhood experiences.
Am J Prev Med
. 2010 Jul;39(1):93-8. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2010.03.015.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral risk factor surveillance system.
CDC.gov
. Accessed January 30, 2023.
https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/index.html.
5. A TO, Enns MW, Cox BJ, Asmundson GJ, Stein MB, Sareen J. Population attributable fractions of psychiatric disorders and suicide ideation and
attempts associated with adverse childhood experiences.
Am J Public Health
. 2008 May;98(5):946-52. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.120253.
. A TO, Boman J, Fleisher W, Sareen J. The relationship between child abuse, parental divorce, and lifetime mental disorders and suicidality in a
nationally representative adult sample.
Child Abuse Negl
. 2009 Mar;33(3):139-47. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.12.009.
7. Anda RF, Whiteld CL, Felitti VJ, Chapman D, Edwards VJ, Dube SR, Williamson DF. Adverse childhood experiences, alcoholic parents, and later risk of
alcoholism and depression.
Psychiatr Serv
. 2002 Aug;53(8):1001-9. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.53.8.1001.
. Dube SR, Anda RF, Felitti VJ, Chapman DP, Williamson DF, Giles WH. Childhood abuse, household dysfunction, and the risk of attempted suicide
throughout the life span: ndings from the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study.
JAMA
. 2001 Dec 26;286(24):3089-96. doi:10.1001/jama.286.24.3089.
9. Edwards VJ, Holden GW, Felitti VJ, Anda RF. Relationship between multiple forms of childhood maltreatment and adult mental health in community
respondents: results from the adverse childhood experiences study.
Am J Psychiatry
. 2003 Aug;160(8):1453-60. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.160.8.1453.
10. Isohookana R, Riala K, Hakko H, Räsänen P. Adverse childhood experiences and suicidal behavior of adolescent psychiatric inpatients.
Eur Child Adolesc
Psychiatry
. 2013 Jan;22(1):13-22. doi:10.1007/s00787-012-0311-8.
11. Lu W, Mueser KT, Rosenberg SD, Jankowski MK. Correlates of adverse childhood experiences among adults with severe mood disorders.
Psychiatr Serv
.
2008 Sep;59(9):1018-26. doi:10.1176/ps.2008.59.9.1018.
12. Schilling EA, Aseltine RH Jr, Gore S. Adverse childhood experiences and mental health in young adults: a longitudinal survey.
BMC Public Health
. 2007
Mar 7;7:30. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-7-30.
13. Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, Williamson DF, Spitz AM, Edwards V, Koss MP, Marks JS. Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to
many of the leading causes of death in adults. The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE)
Study. Am J Prev Med
. 1998 May;14(4):245-58.
doi:10.1016/s0749-3797(98)00017-8.
14. Irving SM, Ferraro KF. Reports of abusive experiences during childhood and adult health ratings: personal control as a pathway?
J Aging Health
. 2006
Jun;18(3):458-85. doi:10.1177/0898264305280994.
15. Monnat SM, Chandler RF. Long Term Physical Health Consequences of Adverse Childhood Experiences.
Sociol Q
. 2015 Sep;56(4):723-752.
doi:10.1111/tsq.12107.
1. Roettger ME, Boardman JD. Parental incarceration and gender-based risks for increased body mass index: evidence from the National Longitudinal Study
of Adolescent Health in the United States.
Am J Epidemiol
. 2012 Apr 1;175(7):636-44. doi:10.1093/aje/kwr409.
17. Schafer MH, Ferraro KF. Childhood misfortune as a threat to successful aging: avoiding disease.
Gerontologist
. 2012 Feb;52(1):111-20.
doi:10.1093/geront/gnr071.
1. Chapman DP, Whiteld CL, Felitti VJ, Dube SR, Edwards VJ, Anda RF. Adverse childhood experiences and the risk of depressive disorders in adulthood.
J
Affect Disord
. 2004 Oct 15;82(2):217-25. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2003.12.013.
19. Gutman LM, Sameroff AJ, Cole R. Academic growth curve trajectories from 1st grade to 12th grade: effects of multiple social risk factors and preschool
child factors.
Dev Psychol
. 2003 Jul;39(4):777-790. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.4.777.
20. Bellis MA, Hughes K, Leckenby N, Perkins C, Lowey H. National household survey of adverse childhood experiences and their relationship with resilience to
health-harming behaviors in England.
BMC Med
. 2014 May 2;12:72. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-12-72.
21. Levey EJ, Chang AR, Sanchez MLJ, Harrison AM, Rodriguez AEM, Gelaye B, Rondon MB. Manifestations of Intergenerational Trauma During the Perinatal
Period Among Adolescent Mothers in Lima, Peru: A Qualitative Analysis.
J Child Adolesc Trauma
. 2022 Aug 12;16(1):21-30. doi:10.1007/s40653-022-
00477-y.
22. Anda RF, Felitti VJ, Bremner JD, Walker JD, Whiteld C, Perry BD, Dube SR, Giles WH. The enduring effects of abuse and related adverse experiences in
childhood. A convergence of evidence from neurobiology and epidemiology.
Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci
. 2006 Apr;256(3):174-86.
doi:10.1007/s00406-005-0624-4.
23. Carlson JS, Yohannan J, Darr, CL, Turley MR, Larez NA, Perfect MM. Prevalence of adverse childhood experiences in school-aged youth: A systematic
review (1990–2015).
Int J Sch Educ Psychol
. 2020; 8(Sup1): 2-23. doi:10.1080/21683603.2018.1548397
24. Giano Z, Wheeler DL, Hubach RD. The frequencies and disparities of adverse childhood experiences in the U.S.
BMC Public Health
. 2020 Sep
10;20(1):1327. doi:10.1186/s12889-020-09411-z.
25. Merrick MT, Ford DC, Ports KA, Guinn AS. Prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences From the 2011-2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
in 23 States.
JAMA Pediatr
. 2018 Nov 1;172(11):1038-1044. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.2537.
2. Sacks V, Murphey D. The prevalence of adverse childhood experiences, nationally, by state, and by race or ethnicity.
ChildTrends.org
. 2018; Accessed
February 11, 2023. https://www.childtrends.org/publications/prevalence-adverse-childhood-experiences-nationally-state-race-ethnicity.
27. Bensley LS, Van Eenwyk J, Simmons KW. Self-reported childhood sexual and physical abuse and adult HIV-risk behaviors and heavy drinking.
Am J Prev
Med
. 2000 Feb;18(2):151-8. doi:10.1016/s0749-3797(99)00084-7.
Page 8/14
2. Briere J, Runtz M. Differential adult symptomatology associated with three types of child abuse histories.
Child Abuse Negl
. 1990;14(3):357-64.
doi:10.1016/0145-2134(90)90007-g.
29. Brown J, Cohen P, Johnson JG, Smailes EM. Childhood abuse and neglect: specicity of effects on adolescent and young adult depression and
suicidality.
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry
. 1999 Dec;38(12):1490-6. doi:10.1097/00004583-199912000-00009.
30. De Bellis MD, Broussard ER, Herring DJ, Wexler S, Moritz G, Benitez JG. Psychiatric co-morbidity in caregivers and children involved in maltreatment: a
pilot research study with policy implications.
Child Abuse Negl
. 2001 Jul;25(7):923-44. doi:10.1016/s0145-2134(01)00247-2.
31. Johnson JG, Cohen P, Kasen S, Brook JS. Childhood adversities associated with risk for eating disorders or weight problems during adolescence or early
adulthood.
Am J Psychiatry
. 2002 Mar;159(3):394-400. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.159.3.394.
32. Liebschutz J, Savetsky JB, Saitz R, Horton NJ, Lloyd-Travaglini C, Samet JH. The relationship between sexual and physical abuse and substance abuse
consequences.
J Subst Abuse Treat
. 2002 Apr;22(3):121-8. doi:10.1016/s0740-5472(02)00220-9.
33. Mullen PE, Martin JL, Anderson JC, Romans SE, Herbison GP. The long-term impact of the physical, emotional, and sexual abuse of children: a community
study.
Child Abuse Negl
. 1996 Jan;20(1):7-21. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(95)00112-3.
34. Walsh C, MacMillan H, Jamieson E. The relationship between parental psychiatric disorder and child physical and sexual abuse: ndings from the Ontario
Health Supplement.
Child Abuse Negl
. 2002 Jan;26(1):11-22. doi:10.1016/s0145-2134(01)00308-8.
35. American Psychiatric Association.
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
, 5th ed. Washington, DC. 2013
3. Bernet W, Wamboldt MZ, Narrow WE. Child affected by parental relationship distress.
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry
. 2016 Jul;55(7):571-9.
doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2016.04.018.
37. Harman JJ, Kruk E, Hines DA. Parental alienating behaviors: An unacknowledged form of family violence.
Psychol Bull
. 2018 Dec;144(12):1275-1299.
doi:10.1037/bul0000175.
3. Cocchiola CM. COVID-19 and sheltering in place: The experiences of coercive control for college students returning home.
Shared Trauma, Shared
Resilience During a Pandemic: Social Work in the Time of COVID-19.
Springer Nature Switzerland AG. 2021: 79-92. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-61442-3_9
39. Harman JJ, Kruk E. The same coin: Intimate partner violence, child abuse, and parental alienation. In B. Russell & J. Hamel (Eds.),
Gender and Domestic
Violence: Contemporary Legal Practice and Intervention Reforms.
Russell & J. Hamel/Oxford University Press. 2022
40. Bancroft L, Silverman J. The batterer as parent: Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics.
Psychiatry, Psychol and Law
. 2002;
9(2):
284–285
41. Machado A, Hines D, Douglas EM. Male Victims of Female-Perpetrated Partner Violence: A Qualitative Analysis of Men's Experiences, the Impact of
Violence, and Perceptions of Their Worth.
Psychol Men Masc
. 2020 Oct;21(4):612-621. doi:10.1037/men0000285.
42. Domestic Abuse Intervention Program. Home of the Duluth Model. Accessed February 12, 2023.
TheDeluthModel.org
.
http://www.theduluthmodel.org/training/wheels.html
43. Bair-Merritt MH, Jennings JM, Chen R, Burrell L, McFarlane E, Fuddy L, Duggan AK. Reducing maternal intimate partner violence after the birth of a child: a
randomized controlled trial of the Hawaii Healthy Start Home Visitation Program.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med
. 2010 Jan;164(1):16-23.
doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.237
44. Callaghan JEM, Alexander JH, Sixsmith J, Fellin LC. Beyond "Witnessing": Children's Experiences of Coercive Control in Domestic Violence and Abuse.
J
Interpers Violence
. 2018 May;33(10):1551-1581. doi:10.1177/0886260515618946
45. Helweg-Larsen K, Frederiksen ML, Larsen HB. Violence, a risk factor for poor mental health in adolescence: a Danish nationally representative youth
survey.
Scand J Public Health
. 2011 Dec;39(8):849-56. doi:10.1177/1403494811421638
4. Katz E. Beyond the physical incident model: How children living with domestic violence are harmed by and resist regimes of coercive control.
Child Abuse
Rev
. 2016;25(1):46-59. doi:10.1002/car.2422
47. Katz, E. Coercive control-based domestic abuse: Impacts on mothers and children. Childhood and Youth Studies, Liverpool Hope University.
AVAproject.org
. 2016 Jan; Accessed February 12, 2023. https://avaproject.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2016/03/Emma-Katz-2016.pdf
4. Meltzer H, Doos L, Vostanis P, Ford T, Goodman R. The mental health of children who witness domestic violence.
Child Fam Soc Work
. 2009;14(4):491-
501. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2009.00633.x
49. Mullender AE, Kelly L, Hague GM, Imam U. Children’s needs, coping strategies and understanding of woman abuse.
Academia.edu
. Accessed February 12,
2023.
https://www.academia.edu/25023279/CHILDRENS_NEEDS_COPING_STRATEGIES_AND_UNDERSTANDINGS_OF_WOMAN_ABUSE_Award_No_L129_25_10
50. Radford L, Aitken R, Miller P, Ellis J, Roberts J, Firkic A. Meeting the needs of children living with domestic violence in London.
CityBridgeTryust.org
. 2011;
Accessed February 12, 2023. https://www.citybridgetrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/DomesticViolenceFull.pdf
51. Baker AJL, Creegan A, Quinones A, Rozelle L. Foster children’s views of their parents: A review of the literature.
Child Youth Serv Rev
. 2016; 67:177-183.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.06.004
52. Baker AJL, Miller S, Bernet W, Adebayo T. The assessment of the attitudes and behaviors about physically abused children: A survey of mental health
professionals.
J Child Fam Stud
. 2019;28(12):3401-3411. doi:10.1007/s10826-019-01522-5
53. Harman JJ, Warshak RA, Lorandos D, Florian MJ. Developmental psychology and the scientic status of parental alienation.
Dev Psychol
. 2022
Oct;58(10):1887-1911. doi:10.1037/dev0001404
54. Baker AJL, Verrocchio MC. Parental bonding and parental alienation as correlates of psychological maltreatment in adults in intact and non-intact
families
J Child Fam Stud
. 2015;24(10):3047-3057. doi:10.1007/s10826-014-0108-0
Page 9/14
55. Bernet W, Gregory N, Rohner RP, Reay KM. Measuring the Difference Between Parental Alienation and Parental Estrangement: The PARQ-Gap.
J Forensic
Sci
. 2020 Jul;65(4):1225-1234. doi:10.1111/1556-4029.14300
5. Harman J J, Matthewson M. Parental alienating behaviors.
Parental Alienation- Science and Law
. Charles C Thomas Publisher. 2020; 82-141
57. Kruk E. Parental alienation as a form of emotional child abuse: Current state of knowledge and future directions for research.
Fam Sci Rev.
2018;
22(4),
141-164. Accessed February 12, 2023.
https://childrightsngo.com/newdownload/downloadsection9/Parental%20Alienation%20as%20form%20of%20Emotional%20Abuse%20Family%20Scienc
5. Baker AJL, Darnall D. Behaviors and Strategies Employed in Parental Alienation: A Survey of Parental Experiences. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage.
2006;45(1-2):97-124. doi:10.1300/J087v45n01_06
59. Godbout E, Parent C. The life paths and lived experiences of adults who have experienced parental alienation: A retrospective study.
J Divorce Remarriage
.
2012;53(1):34-54. doi:10.1080/10502556.2012.635967
0. Harman JJ, Maniotes CR, Grubb C. Power dynamics in families affected by parental alienation.
Pers Relatsh
. 2021;28(4):883-906.
doi:10.1111/pere.12392
1. Rowlands GA, Warshak RA, Harman JJ. Abused and rejected: The link between domestic intimate partner violence and parental alienation.
Partner Abuse.
In Press
2. Baker, AJL.
Adult children of parental alienation syndrome: Breaking the ties that bind.
W. W. Norton & Co. 2007
3. von Boch-Galhau W. Parental Alienation (Syndrome) – Eine ernst zu nehmende Form von psychischer Kindesmisshandlung [Parental Alienation
(Syndrome) - A serious form of child psychological abuse].
Neuropsychiatr
. 2018 Sep;32(3):133-148. German. doi: 10.1007/s40211-018-0267-00
4. Clawar SS, Rivlin BV.
Children held hostage: Identifying brainwashed children, presenting a case, and crafting solutions.
Chicago, IL: American Bar
Association. 2013
5. Lorandos D. Parental alienation and North American law.
Parental Alienation:
The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals
. 2013;348–424.
Charles C Thomas.
. Aloia LS, Strutzenberg C. Parent–child communication apprehension: The role of parental alienation and self-esteem.
Comm Reports
. 2019;32(1):1-14.
doi:10.1080/08934215.2018.1514641
7. Baker AJL. The Long-Term Effects of Parental Alienation on Adult Children: A Qualitative Research Study.
Am J Fam Ther
. 2005;33(4):289-302.
doi:10.1080/01926180590962129
. Baker AJL, Ben-Ami N. To turn a child against a parent is to turn a child against himself: The direct and indirect effects of exposure to parental alienation
strategies on self-esteem and well-being.
J Divorce Remarriage
. 2011;52(7):472-489. doi:10.1080/10502556.2011.609424
9. Baker AJL, Verrocchio MC. Exposure to parental alienation and subsequent anxiety and depression in Italian adults.
Am J Fam Ther
. 2016;44(5):255-271.
doi:10.1080/01926187.2016.1230480
70. Rand DC. The spectrum of parental alienation syndrome (Part I).
Am J Forensic Psychol
. 1997;15(3):23-52. Accessed February 16, 2023.
http://www.sakkyndig.com/psykologi/artvit/rand1997.pdf#:~:text=%EE%80%80THE%20SPECTRUM%20OF%20PARENTAL%20ALIENATION%20SYNDROM
71. Verhaar S, Matthewson ML, Bentley C. The Impact of Parental Alienating Behaviours on the Mental Health of Adults Alienated in Childhood.
Children
(Basel).
2022 Mar 30;9(4):475. doi:10.3390/children9040475
72. Verrocchio MC, Marchetti D, Carrozzino D, Compare A, Fulcheri M. Depression and quality of life in adults perceiving exposure to parental alienation
behaviors.
Health Qual Life Outcomes
. 2019 Jan 14;17(1):14. doi:10.1186/s12955-019-1080-6
73. Johnston JR, Lee S, Olesen NW, Walters MG. Allegations and Substantiations of Abuse in Custody-disputing Families.
Fam Court Rev
. 2005;43(2):283-
294. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2005.00029.x
74. Bentley C, Matthewson M. The not-forgotten child: Alienated adult children’s experience of parental alienation.
Am J Fam Ther
. 2020;48(5):509-529.
doi:10.1080/01926187.2020.1775531
75. Harman JJ, Bernet W, Harman J. Parental alienation: The blossoming of a eld of study.
Curr Dir Psychol Sci
. 2019;28(2):212-217.
doi:10.1177/0963721419827271
7. Baker AJ, Eichler A. The linkage between parental alienation behaviors and child alienation.
J Divorce Remarriage
, 2016;57(7):475-484.
doi:10.1080/10502556.2016.1220285
77. Rohner RP, Ali S. Parental acceptance-rejection questionnaire (PARQ).
Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences
. Springer, Cham. 2016;1-4.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_56
7. Gardner RA. Recommendations for dealing with parents who induce a parental alienation syndrome in their children.
J Divorce Remarriage
. 1998;28(3-
4):1-23. doi:10.1300/J087v28n03_01
79. Gomez R, Rohner RP. Tests of factor structure and measurement invariance in the united states and australia using the adult version of the parental
acceptance-rejection questionnaire. CC
Res J Com Soc Sci
. 2011;45(3):267-285. doi:10.1177/1069397111403111
0. Khaleque A, Rohner RP. Perceived parental acceptance-rejection and psychological adjustment: A meta-analysis of cross-cultural and intracultural studies.
J Marriage Fam
. 2002;64(1):54-64. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00054.x
1. Senese VP, Bacchini D, Miranda MC, et al. The Adult Parental Acceptance–Rejection Questionnaire: A cross-cultural comparison of Italian and American
short forms.
Parent Sci Pract
. 2016;16(4):219-236. doi:10.1080/15295192.2016.1180943
2. Hedges K.
Coping with negative life events during childhood
. Undergraduate Thesis. Oklahoma State University; 2020. Accessed February 12, 2023.
https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/329435/oksd_hedges_HT_2020.pdf?sequence=1.
Page 10/14
3. Vranceanu AM, Hobfoll SE, Johnson RJ. Child multi-type maltreatment and associated depression and PTSDsymptoms: the role of social support and
stress.
Child Abuse Negl
. 2007 Jan;31(1):71-84. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.04.010
4. Zimet GD, Dahlem NW, Zimet SG, Farley GK. The multidimensional scale of perceived social support.
J Pers Assess
. 1988;52(1):30-41.
doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2
5. Dambi JM, Corten L, Chiwaridzo M, Jack H, Mlambo T, Jelsma J. A systematic review of the psychometric properties of the cross-cultural translations and
adaptations of the Multidimensional Perceived Social Support Scale (MSPSS).
Health Qual Life Outcomes
. 2018 May 2;16(1):80. doi:10.1186/s12955-
018-0912-0
. Cabreatis LR.
Brief Symptom Inventory
. Clinical Psychometric Research. 1975
7. Aroian KJ, Patsdaughter CA. Multiple-method, cross-cultural assessment of psychological distress.
Image J Nurs Sch
. 1989 Summer;21(2):90-3.
doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.1989.tb00105.x
. Croog SH, Levine S, Testa MA, Brown B, Bulpitt CJ, Jenkins CD, Klerman GL, Williams GH. The effects of antihypertensive therapy on the quality of life.
N
Engl J Med
. 1986 Jun 26;314(26):1657-64. doi:10.1056/NEJM198606263142602
9. Derogatis LR.
The brief symptom inventory (BSI): Administration and procedures manual-1
. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Clinical
Psychometric Research Unit. 1982
90. Derogatis LR.
BSI brief symptom inventory: Administration, scoring, and procedure manual.
National Computer Systems. 1993
91. Cloitre M, Khan C, Mackintosh MA, Garvert DW, Henn-Haase CM, Falvey EC, Saito J. Emotion regulation mediates the relationship between ACES and
physical and mental health.
Psychol Trauma
. 2019 Jan;11(1):82-89. doi:10.1037/tra0000374
92. Riedl D, Lampe A, Exenberger S, Nolte T, Trawöger I, Beck T. Prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and associated physical and mental
health problems amongst hospital patients: Results from a cross-sectional study.
Gen Hosp Psychiatry
. 2020 May-Jun;64:80-86.
doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2020.03.005
93. Rudenstine S, Espinosa A, McGee AB, Routhier E. Adverse childhood events, adult distress, and the role of emotion regulation.
Traumatology
.
2019;25(2):124-132. doi:10.1037/trm0000176
94. Zumbo BD, Gadermann AM, Zeisser C. Ordinal versions of coecients alpha and theta for Likert rating scales.
J Mod Appl Stat Methods
. 2007;6
(
1):21-29.
doi:10.22237/jmasm/1177992180
95. Cattell RB.
The scientic use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences
. New York: Plenum. 1978. Accessed on February 12, 2023.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-2262-7
9. Gorsuch,R.
Factor analysis
. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. 1983
97. Hoyle RH. Kenny DA. Sample size, reliability, and tests of statistical mediation.
Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research
. Sage. 1999
9. Cabrera OA, Hoge CW, Bliese PD, Castro CA, Messer SC. Childhood adversity and combat as predictors of depression and post-traumatic stress in
deployed troops.
Am J Prev Med
. 2007 Aug;33(2):77-82. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.03.019
99. MacMillan HL, Fleming JE, Streiner DL, Lin E, Boyle MH, Jamieson E, Duku EK, Walsh CA, Wong MY, Beardslee WR. Childhood abuse and lifetime
psychopathology in a community sample.
Am J Psychiatry
. 2001 Nov;158(11):1878-83. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp
100. Schalinski I, Teicher MH, Nischk D, Hinderer E, Müller O, Rockstroh B. Type and timing of adverse childhood experiences differentially affect severity of
PTSD, dissociative and depressive symptoms in adult inpatients.
BMC Psychiatry
. 2016 Aug 19;16:295. doi:10.1186/s12888-016-1004-5
101. Harman JJ, Matthewson ML, Baker AJL. Losses experienced by children alienated from a parent.
Curr Opin Psychol
. 2022;43:7-12.
doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.05.002
Tables
Table 1.ACE-PA Regression Results Using Benevolent Childhood Experiences as the Criterion
Page 11/14
Predictor
b b
95% CI
[LL, UL]
beta beta
95% CI
[LL, UL]
sr2 sr2
95% CI
[LL, UL]
r
Fit
(Intercept) 9.80** [9.59, 10.01]
ACE_PA_Sum -0.37** [-0.43, -0.32] -0.65 [-0.75, -0.55] .42 [.33, .50] -.65**
R2
= .425**
95% CI[.33,.50]
ACE- PA Regression results using Brief Symptoms Inventory as the criterion
(Intercept) 34.91** [28.43, 41.39]
ACE_PA_Sum 5.92** [4.12, 7.73] 0.40 [0.28, 0.52] .16 [.08, .25] .40**
R2
= .160**
95% CI[.08,.25]
ACE Regression results using Benevolent Childhood Experiences as the criterion
(Intercept) 9.68** [9.46, 9.89]
ACE_Sum -0.49** [-0.57, -0.40] -0.60 [-0.70, -0.49] .36 [.26, .44] -.60**
R2
= .355**
95% CI[.26,.44]
ACE Regression results using Brief Symptoms Inventory as the criterion
(Intercept) 37.08** [30.69, 43.47]
ACE_Sum 7.81** [5.18, 10.44] 0.37 [0.24, 0.49] .13 [.06, .22] .37**
R2
= .134**
95% CI[.06,.22]
Note.
A signicant
b
-weight indicates the beta-weight and semi-partial correlation are also signicant.
b
represents unstandardized regression weights.
beta
indicates the standardized regression weights.
sr2
represents the semi-partial correlation squared.
r
represents the zero-order correlation.
LL
and
UL
indicate
the lower and upper limits of a condence interval, respectively.
* indicates
p
< .05. ** indicates
p
< .01
Table 2.Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations with Condence Intervals
Page 12/14
Variable
M SD
1234567
1. PARQ_GAP 8.74 10.50
2. BAQ_Sum 0.45 1.05 .60**
[.51, .68]
3. PCPB_Sum 35.39 8.10 -.45** -.27**
[-.56, -.34] [-.39, -.14]
4. MSPSS_Sum 71.14 12.63 -.22** .02 .37**
[-.35, -.09] [-.11, .15] [.25, .49]
5. ACE_NEW_1 0.04 0.20 .22** .31** -.24** -.05
[.09, .35] [.19, .43] [-.36, -.11] [-.18, .08]
6. ACE_NEW_2 0.21 0.40 .68** .33** -.48** -.38** .21**
[.60, .75] [.21, .45] [-.57, -.36] [-.48, -.26] [.08, .33]
7. ACE_NEW_3 0.25 0.43 .36** .21** -.35** -.22** .17** .41**
[.23, .47] [.08, .33] [-.46, -.22] [-.34, -.09] [.04, .30] [.29, .51]
8. ACE_NEW_4 0.12 0.33 .32** .26** -.41** -.18** .18** .34** .34**
[.19, .43] [.13, .37] [-.51, -.29] [-.31, -.05] [.05, .30] [.22, .45] [.22, .45]
Note.
M
and
SD
are used to represent mean and standard deviation, respectively. Values in square brackets indicate the 95% condence interval for each
correlation. The condence interval is a plausible range of population correlations that could have caused the sample correlation (Cumming, 2014). * indicates
p
< .05. ** indicates
p
< .01.
Table 3.Correlations
1234567891011
ACE_1 —
ACE_2 0.85 —
ACE_3 0.37 0.40 —
ACE_4 0.78 0.78 0.21 —
ACE_5 0.75 0.52 0.18 0.75 —
ACE_6 0.49 0.33 0.24 0.31 0.73 —
ACE_PA 0.74 0.47 0.32 0.71 0.80 0.54 —
ACE_7 0.65 0.58 0.45 0.50 0.67 0.62 0.51 —
ACE_8 0.42 0.21 0.15 0.45 0.52 0.53 0.48 0.52 —
ACE_9 0.49 0.35 0.27 0.52 0.67 0.40 0.53 0.89 0.57 —
ACE_10 0.36 0.36 0.26 0.38 0.30 0.50 0.26 0.61 0.65 0.46 —
Table 4.Two-factor Loading with New PA Item
Page 13/14
Oblimin Rotated Factor Loadings and Factor Inter-Correlations From the EFA of the ACE Data
Item Abuse/neglect Household dysfunction
10.915 0.03
20.687 -0.07
40.636 0.01
5 0.10 0.423
6 -0.04 0.591
New ACE-PA Item 0.247 0.352
7 0.224 0.473
8 -0.127 0.629
9 0.129 0.434
10 0.02 0.434
Appendix A
Appendix A is not available with this version
Figures
Figure 1
Scree Plot for Number of Factors by Eigenvalue
