Childhood Bullying in Female Victims and Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome in Early Adulthood - Term Paper Example

?The Link Between Childhood Bullying in Female Victims and Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome in Early Adulthood By This study is designed to establish a link between childhood bullying in female victims and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in early adulthood. This study is, therefore, comprised of two parts. The first part of the study identifies a sample population of females between the ages of 20 and 25, who experienced traumatic episodes of bullying between the ages of 9 and 12. In this part of the study, the females will participate in a survey in which they are asked to recall their most traumatic bullying experiences at this much earlier age. In the second part of the study, the participants will complete the Impact of Events Scale Revised (IESR). The purpose of the IESR is to determine the posttraumatic reactions to the traumatic bullying experiences. This study consists of three variables: independent, dependent and controlling variables. The independent variable is adult females who recall episodes of bullying when they were between the ages of 9 and 12. The dependent variable is duration of the most traumatic episode of bullying recalled and its connection to PTSD. The controlling variable is gender (female). Since the cohorts will be asked to recall past experiences, this is a retrospective study (Blane, 1996). Limitations associated with retrospective studies have been well-documented (Mantel, 1973). In particular, Collopy (1998) found that retrospective studies in which subjects were asked to recall their use of information systems was inconsistent with actual use and thus, retrospective self-reports can be biased. Coughlin (1990) conducted a review of the literature on the validity of retrospective studies involving subjects recalling previous and remote events. Coughlin (1990) found that while there are significant problems with recall bias and recall inaccuracies, researchers can control bias and inaccuracy in the way that they interview or design questionnaires. For the purpose of this study, the accuracy and bias of the retrospective self-reports are of no real significance. This study seeks to establish a link between childhood bullying in female victims and PTSD in early adulthood. The main issue is, therefore, the extent to which the early experiences with bullying triggers traumatic responses later on. PTSD patients are known to have no control over their recall and can have recall bias in that they tend to exaggerate recollections of previous traumatic experiences. It is always given that the traumatic experience is often relived and is real, although it can be exaggerated. What is important is that the previous experience was traumatic for the subject and that this previous experience is the trigger for post-traumatic reactions (Corales, 2005). Therefore, the weaknesses associated with retrospective studies in relation to recall bias and inaccuracies do not impact the validity of this study. This study is not concerned with the accuracy or bias of the subjects’ retrospective self-reports. PTSD is associated with flawed memory, although PTSD patients typically keep their past triggering traumatic experiences alive because they do not have the ability to suppress those memories, and re-experience those episodes involuntarily (Shiromani, Keene, & LeDoux, 2009). This study is only concerned with establishing the original triggering traumatic event and is not concerned with the accuracy of the subject’s memory or the accuracy of the details of that event. This study is only required to establish that the most traumatic experiences of bullying have triggered post-traumatic experiences. Thus, content validity is not necessary for establishing this link (Fitzpatrick, 1983). Empirical validity, however, is important to this study. In this regard, empirical validity is defined as: ...accurate measurement or prediction of performance, as demonstrated by research. It refers to a test that has more than mere face validity (Corsini, 2002, p. 327). In other words, empirical validity is achieved if the study is measuring what it purports to measure. This study purports to measure the link between bullying among female victims between the ages of 9 and 12 and the extent to which those experiences trigger symptoms of PTSD in early adulthood. Empirical validity is achieved by sample selection via the independent and control variables and the dependent variable which is supplemented by the IESR measurement. Together this data collection provides valid information relative to the extent to which earlier traumatic bullying experiences trigger PTSD symptoms in early adulthood. Construct validity is also important to this research study. Construct is described as: ...an attribute, trait, or characteristic that in itself is not directly observable, but can only be inferred by looking at observable behaviors, which are hypothesized to indicate the presence of that construct...If a test were designed to measure the construct...it might have questions relating to the frequency and intensity of these...behaviors. Then a score on this test would be interpreted as indicating the test takers’ standing on this hypothetical construct... (Miller, McIntire, & Lovler, 2011, p. 242). Construct validity will be ensured by using the IESR. The IESR is a short questionnaire which includes 22 questions with five added to the original Impact of Event Scale to make it more suitable for detecting and complying with the DSM-IV parameters of PTSD (Weiss & Marmar, 1997). The IESR is an appropriate scale for measuring post-traumatic responses to triggering events, particularly responses such as intrusive thinking, nightmares, intrusive feelings and intrusive imagination as well as reliving a traumatic experience, concentration difficulties, and a tendency to be startled easily (Weiss & Marmar, 1997). There are a number of theories relative to PTSD that focus on its effects on patients, symptoms and behavioral outcomes. Thus, a majority of trauma tests typically correspond with different theories. For example, a number of trauma theorists postulate that traumatic experiences affect changes in the patient’s feelings and perspectives and these changes have a significant role to play in their post-traumatic responses. These theories relate to cognitions related to trauma, but theorists typically differ relative to the particular relevant cognition. For example, Janoff-Bulman created the World Assumptions Scale to measure perceptions of “self-worth and benevolence of the impersonal world” (Foa, Ehlers, Clark, Tolin, & Orsillo, 1999, p. 303). The World Assumptions Scale was developed in relation to the hypothesis that four belief systems are altered following a traumatic episode: self-worth is heightened, perceptions of a benign world, belief that the world lacks meaning and a belief that people cannot be trusted (Foa et al., 1999). Obviously, construct validity cannot be achieved by using the World Assumptions Scale in this research study. This research study is not concerned with testing the effects of PSTD on patients or how it influences their thoughts or changes their thoughts and feelings. This study seeks to establish that the participants have the symptoms associated with PSTD and that those symptoms are triggered by or related to a past event. In this regard, the IESR is entirely valid for testing the research question and the issue under investigation. Thus, the IESR is a feasible instrument for achieving construct validity. Elhai, Gray, Kashdan, and Franklin (2005) conducted a survey of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies with a membership of 227. The survey involved questions designed to determine the instruments most commonly used for testing exposure to trauma and assessing posttraumatic responses. The research results found that in terms of both clinical and research testing, the most commonly used instruments are the Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale, Trauma Symptom Inventory, Life Events Checklist, Clinician-Administered Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Scale, PTSD Checklist, Impact of Event Scale Revised and Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children. The results of the study also found that there was no difference in use in terms of the degree level, experience and student study levels (Elhai et al., 2005). Elhai et al. (2005) also explain that knowledge of the most commonly used instruments for assessing exposure to trauma and PTSD is significant for a number of reasons. First, it informs of the traditions in the field in terms of measuring traumatic stress and generally accepted “scientific procedures” (Elhai et al., 2005, p. 541). Secondly, knowing the most commonly used instruments for assessing exposure to traumatic stress and PSTD symptoms also encourage further research with like instruments for comparing findings in different research studies. Thirdly, new instruments can be created for responding to the same needs and finally, researchers and clinicians who are only just entering the field can know which instruments are valid (Elhai et al., 2005). In addition to its scientific reliability and the fact that it is among the most commonly used instruments for measuring PSTD, the IESR was specifically calculated for use with a specific traumatic episode in terms of its instructions to the subject taking the test and using a specific time (Weiss & Marmar, 1997). This is a particularly important aspect of the IESR as it corresponds with this research study’s objective of determining the link between a specific bullying experience of females between the ages of 9 and 12 and the symptoms of PSTD later on, triggered by this specific experience. The sample is asked to recall the most traumatic bullying experience that occurred between the ages of 9 and 12. The IESR assesses how that experience triggers traumatic stress now when the participants are between the ages of 20 and 25. The limitations of the IESR are its use merely as a non-clinical instrument. The test is not suitable for a more robust clinical test and is merely a screening instrument (Weiss & Marmar, 1997). Therefore, the results of the test will not definitively provide a clinical diagnosis of PSTD. However, it will provide a valid prediction that the subjects have the symptoms consistent with PSTD as listed by the DSM-IV. In order to confirm this, a clinician with experience would have to administer the test together with other psychological testing to rule out other possibilities. Since this study is only concerned with the factors that contribute to the development and maintenance of PSTD rather than prescribing treatment, a clinical diagnosis is not necessary. Nominal levels of measurements are not important to this study since nominal levels of measurement are concerned with quantity as opposed to quality. Nominal levels of measurement distinguish between values such as names, gender, age, etc. (Brian, 2002). In other words, nominal levels of measurements are used to categorize data. Since this study focuses on a specific group of persons with the same experience, there are no categories in the measurements, although outcomes might be categorized. Ordinal levels of measurements are used to rank data. For instance, a researcher might rank the temperature in a room at different times of the day. This would be ordinal measurements (Brian, 2000). Since this research study is a one-time study conducted in two parts, the data is not ranked and thus, ordinal levels of measurements are entirely unnecessary for the purpose of this study. Ratio levels of measurements are similarly unimportant to this study as ratio levels of measurement are used to assess occurrences beginning from a zero value, and measurements occur at subsequent intervals (Brian, 2000). Thus, “real mathematical” measurements are used in ratio level measurements (Brian, 2000, p. 217). This study is only looking for a link between bullying experienced in childhood and post-traumatic responses in early adulthood and thus, no mathematical calculations are necessary. References Blane, D. B. (1996). Collecting retrospective data: Development of a reliable method and a pilot study of its use. Social Science & Medicine, 42(5), 761–767. Brian, C. (2000). Advanced subsidiary psychology: Approaches and methods. Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thornes, Ltd. Collopy, F. (1998, May). Biases in retrospective self-reports of time use: An empirical study of computer users. Management Science, 42(5), 768–787. Corales, T. A. (2005). Focus on post-traumatic stress disorder research. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Corsini, R. J. (2002). The dictionary of psychology. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge. Coughlin, S. S. (1990). Recall bias in epidemiologic studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 43(1), 87–91. Elhai, J. D., Gray, M. J., Kashdan, T. D., & Franklin, C. L. (2005, October). Which instruments are most commonly used to assess traumatic event exposure and posttraumatic effects?: A survey of traumatic stress professionals. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18(5), 541–545. Fitzpatrick, A. R. (1983, Winter). The meaning of content validity. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7(1), 3–13. Foa, E. B., Ehlers, A., Clark, D. M., Tolin, D. F., & Orsillo, S. M. (1999). The posttraumatic cognition inventory (PTCT) development and validation. Psychological Assessment, 11(3), 303–314. Lovler, R. L., Miller, L. A., & McIntire, S. A. (2011). Foundations of psychological testing: A practical approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Mantel, N. (1973, September). Synthetic retrospective studies and related studies. Biometrics, 29(3), 479–486. Shiromani, P. J., Keane, T. M., & LeDoux, J. E. (2009). Post-traumatic stress disorder: Basic science and clinical practice. New York, NY: Human Press. Weiss, D. S., & Marmar, C. R. (1997). The impact of Event Scale-Revised. In J. P. Wilson & T. M. Keane, (Eds.), Assessing psychological trauma and PTSD: A practitioner’s handbook (pp. 399–411). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Read More