ArticleJournal of the Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry2025
Can We Trust the International Trauma Questionnaire? A Comprehensive Systematic Meta-Analytic Review of Its Reliability Across Cultural Contexts in Adult and Child/Adolescent Versions.
Article in Journal of the Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- PTSD and CPTSD amongst parents subject to child protection court proceedings: observed rates and associated demographic and clinical covariates.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2026Observational
- MISAPSY: childhood maltreatment, food insecurity, psychological distress and professional integration among socioeconomically disadvantaged young adults - a mixed-methods study protocol.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Concomitant Psychotropic Medication Is Associated with Reduced Outcomes of Trauma-Focused Psychotherapy for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.Psychotherapy and psychosomatics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the reliability of the International Trauma Questionnaire (ITQ) and its child/adolescent version (ITQ-CA) in diverse populations, including clinical and non-clinical groups. Methods: A systematic search of the Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed databases was conducted using predefined inclusion criteria. Studies reporting Cronbach's α values for ITQ or ITQ-CA total scores or subscales (post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD] and disturbances in self-organization [DSO], respectively) were included. Quality was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool. A reliability generalization meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model to evaluate internal consistency. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q and I Results: Sixty-two studies with 37766 participants from 28 countries were included. The ITQ-18 demonstrated high reliability, with a total score Cronbach's α of 0.896 (k=33; 95% confidence interval [0.8773-0.9129]), PTSD subscale α=0.852 (k=45), and DSO subscale α=0.869 (k=45). The ITQ-CA showed strong internal consistency with a total score α of 0.887 (k=7) and subscale α values of 0.819 for PTSD (k=9) and 0.900 for DSO (k=9). Although the ITQ-22 was analyzed in fewer studies (k=4), it demonstrated promising reliability. High heterogeneity (I Conclusion: The ITQ and ITQ-CA are reliable tools for assessing PTSD and complex PTSD in diverse populations. The findings underscore their psychometric robustness, but the marked heterogeneity highlights the need for contextual adaptations. Future research should expand on longitudinal studies and assess underrepresented regions to enhance cross-cultural validity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.