Childhood Trauma Test: What Questionnaires Can and Cannot Tell You
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 22, 2026 · Editorial Policy
A childhood trauma test can be useful, but only if you know what the questionnaire is actually measuring. There is no single test that can look back at childhood and determine whether a person “has trauma.” Some questionnaires record self-reported exposure to adverse experiences. Others ask about particular forms of abuse or neglect. Still others screen for current post-traumatic symptoms. Those are different tasks, and a score from one should not be interpreted as if it answered the others.
This distinction matters because search results often use “childhood trauma test,” “ACE test,” “trauma quiz,” and “PTSD test” as if they were interchangeable. They are not. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) as potentially traumatic events and adverse environments occurring before age 18, while also noting that the familiar examples are not an exhaustive list. An ACE questionnaire therefore samples categories of adversity; it does not diagnose a trauma-related disorder, reconstruct the past with forensic certainty, or measure how psychologically “damaged” someone is.
The most useful way to approach a questionnaire is to ask a narrower question: What does this instrument measure, in whom, over what time period, and for what purpose? The answer determines what you can reasonably learn from the result.
What Does a “Childhood Trauma Test” Actually Measure?
The phrase “childhood trauma test” is an umbrella search term, not the name of one standardized clinical instrument. In practice, questionnaires under that label usually belong to one of three broad families: retrospective adversity or maltreatment questionnaires, current symptom screeners, and structured diagnostic assessments. The distinction between them is more important than the number at the end of the form.
1. Adversity and exposure questionnaires
These ask whether certain experiences occurred during childhood. The classic ACE approach counts categories such as abuse, neglect, and household challenges. The World Health Organization’s ACE International Questionnaire (ACE-IQ) was designed for adults and expands the scope to include family dysfunction, abuse, neglect, peer violence, community violence, and collective violence. Its purpose is to measure exposure to adverse childhood experiences and study their associations with later outcomes, especially in population and research contexts.
An adversity questionnaire can tell you which experiences you report within that instrument’s definition. It cannot tell you whether every endorsed experience produced a lasting trauma response, and it cannot tell you that a non-endorsed experience was harmless.
2. Maltreatment questionnaires
Other instruments focus more specifically on childhood maltreatment. The Childhood Trauma Questionnaire–Short Form (CTQ-SF), for example, was developed as a retrospective screening measure for histories of emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional neglect, and physical neglect. In the original validation work, the 28-item short form included 25 clinical items and three validity items and was tested across four clinical and nonreferred samples totaling 1,978 participants. Bernstein and colleagues’ validation study supports its use as a structured measure of self-reported maltreatment history, not as a diagnostic verdict about a person’s entire childhood.
3. Current symptom screeners
A symptom screener asks a different question: whether a person currently reports symptoms associated with a condition such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The PCL-5, maintained by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs National Center for PTSD, is a 20-item self-report measure of DSM-5 PTSD symptoms. It can be used for screening, monitoring symptom change, and—in appropriate contexts—supporting a provisional diagnosis. The VA explicitly states that the gold standard for PTSD diagnosis is a structured clinical interview such as the CAPS-5.
Likewise, the PC-PTSD-5 is a brief primary-care screen for probable PTSD. A positive screen calls for further assessment rather than functioning as a diagnosis by itself.
Exposure, Adversity, Trauma Response, and Diagnosis Are Different Things
A great deal of confusion disappears once several concepts are separated.
An adverse childhood experience is an experience or environmental condition included in a particular ACE framework. Childhood adversity is the broader umbrella for difficult or harmful conditions during development. A potentially traumatic event is an event capable of producing a traumatic stress response, but exposure alone does not establish that a particular person developed such a response. Trauma exposure describes what happened; a trauma response describes how a person responded; post-traumatic symptoms describe symptoms after an event; PTSD is a clinical disorder defined by a full set of diagnostic criteria.
Toxic stress is another distinct developmental concept. It refers to excessive or prolonged activation of stress-response systems in the context of serious adversity and insufficient buffering support. It is not another name for an ACE score, and it is not something an online questionnaire can directly measure from a list of childhood events.
Attachment patterns, dissociative experiences, anxiety, depression, people pleasing, relationship difficulties, and many other adult phenomena may be associated with childhood adversity in some people, but none can be read backward from an adversity score as proof of a specific childhood cause. For example, the English Hub’s article on what causes attachment styles explains why caregiving history is one influence among several rather than a one-to-one explanation of adult attachment.
The same principle applies to the popular phrase “attachment trauma.” It can be meaningful therapy language, but it is not a diagnosis that a childhood questionnaire can establish.
What Common Childhood Adversity Questionnaires Can Tell You
Questionnaires can be useful when their results are interpreted at the level for which the instrument was designed. Their value is structure: they turn a vague question about childhood into a defined set of experiences or symptoms that can be described, discussed, and studied.
The original ACE questionnaire and ACE-style checklists
The original CDC–Kaiser ACE Study asked adults about categories of childhood abuse and household dysfunction and examined how the number of reported categories was associated with adult health and behavior. The seminal study found graded population-level associations: as the number of categories increased, several adverse outcomes became more common in the studied sample. The original 1998 ACE Study was epidemiological research. Its cumulative count was not created as a diagnostic scale for deciding whether an individual is traumatized.
An ACE-style questionnaire can therefore summarize the number or type of predefined adversities a person reports. It is well suited to questions such as “Which ACE categories did this respondent endorse?” or “Across a population, how is cumulative adversity associated with later outcomes?” It is poorly suited to questions such as “How damaged is this person?”, “What disorder do they have?”, or “What will happen to them in the future?”
The ACE-IQ
The WHO ACE-IQ broadens the content beyond the classic household-focused categories and was designed for international use with adults. Its wider content can capture adversities that a narrow ten-category checklist misses. Even so, it remains a retrospective exposure measure. A more inclusive questionnaire is still not a clinical diagnosis.
The CTQ-SF
The CTQ-SF measures frequency-based self-reports across five maltreatment domains rather than simply producing a count of heterogeneous ACE categories. That design can provide more detail about particular kinds of maltreatment. But psychometric evidence is not identical across every subscale, population, language, or use.
A 2021 systematic review of CTQ-SF psychometric studies found a substantial literature on internal consistency, structural validity, and hypothesis testing, while identifying important evidence gaps in areas such as reliability, measurement error, content validity, cross-cultural validity, and criterion validity. A 2025 systematic review of adult self-report childhood-adversity questionnaires identified 31 questionnaires across 112 studies and concluded that no questionnaire had sufficient quality across all COSMIN measurement properties. That does not make questionnaires useless. It means instrument choice and score interpretation require more precision than the generic label “validated trauma test” suggests.
What a Childhood Trauma Questionnaire Cannot Tell You
A questionnaire can organize information. It cannot convert a complex developmental history into an objective reading of a person.
It cannot diagnose “childhood trauma”
“Childhood trauma” is a broad descriptive phrase, not a single diagnosis with a universal cutoff score. Exposure questionnaires describe reported experiences. Symptom screeners estimate the likelihood or severity of a symptom pattern. Diagnostic assessment asks whether a person meets criteria for a specific disorder while considering history, impairment, alternative explanations, and clinical context.
It cannot diagnose PTSD from an ACE or maltreatment score
A high adversity score does not establish PTSD, and a low adversity score does not rule it out. PTSD requires a qualifying exposure and a particular pattern of symptoms, duration, and functional impact. Even a PTSD-specific screener such as the PCL-5 is not equivalent to a full structured diagnostic interview.
It cannot measure how “traumatized” or “damaged” you are
A count of categories is not a linear damage scale. Two people with the same count may have experienced very different events, durations, developmental contexts, relationships, protective resources, and later environments. Conversely, one severe experience can be profoundly consequential even if a broad checklist produces a low count.
It cannot predict your individual future
Research can estimate group-level associations between childhood adversity and later outcomes. That is not the same as forecasting what will happen to a particular person. Even when studies show dose-response patterns, those patterns describe probabilities across groups. They do not mean that a score of 4, 6, or 8 determines a future mental or physical illness.
It cannot tell you what caused a current problem
Anxiety, depression, dissociation, relationship distress, chronic pain, compulsive behavior, sleep problems, and many other difficulties are multiply determined. Childhood adversity can be one pathway among several. A retrospective checklist cannot establish that a present-day symptom was caused by a particular childhood experience.
It cannot prove or disprove a disputed memory
Questionnaires depend on what a person remembers, understands, and chooses to report at the time of assessment. They are not forensic truth detectors. They should not be used to tell someone that a vague sensation, dream, relationship pattern, memory gap, or questionnaire score proves a hidden event.
A 2026 systematic review of recovered memories of traumatic experiences found substantial variation in how “recovered memory” has been defined and reported and emphasized a reconstructive memory framework, including the risks of suggestive practices. A questionnaire cannot adjudicate the historical accuracy of an uncertain memory, and it should never be presented as a technique for recovering one.
Why Two Childhood Trauma Tests Can Give You Different Results
Different results do not necessarily mean that one questionnaire is “wrong.” They often mean that the instruments are measuring different things.
Coverage is one reason. The classic ACE framework, ACE-IQ, CTQ-SF, and custom online quizzes include different categories. One may ask about household incarceration or parental separation; another may focus on emotional neglect; another may include bullying, community violence, or discrimination. A score is inseparable from what the instrument decided to count.
Scoring is another reason. A yes/no checklist treats an endorsed category as present or absent. A frequency-based scale can distinguish “rarely” from “very often.” A cumulative count usually gives each category the same numerical weight even though experiences can differ in severity, chronicity, developmental timing, and meaning.
Wording, reference period, cultural context, language, and who completes the questionnaire can also change what is captured. The 2026 Annual Review of Public Health review of ACEs highlights the lack of consensus in how ACEs and positive childhood experiences are operationalized and measured and argues for greater attention to contextual and sociocultural factors.
Finally, retrospective self-report is a form of measurement with its own strengths and limitations. It captures the person’s present report of past experiences. That report is clinically and psychologically meaningful, but it is not identical to prospective records created during childhood.
Retrospective Recall: Neither Perfect Record Nor Meaningless Memory
The science of retrospective childhood reports is more nuanced than two common extremes: “memory is completely unreliable” and “a questionnaire reproduces the past exactly.”
A 2019 systematic review and meta-analysis compared prospective and retrospective measures of childhood maltreatment across 16 studies and 25,471 participants. Agreement was poor overall (κ = 0.19), meaning the two approaches often identified different people. Retrospective interviews showed somewhat higher agreement than retrospective questionnaires. The result is a measurement warning: prospective records and adult retrospective reports should not be treated as interchangeable.
That finding does not mean adult self-reports are simply random or unstable. A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis of 49 studies involving 38,332 participants found that retrospective self-reports of childhood maltreatment were, on average, highly stable across repeated assessments (r = 0.79). Stability varied by sample, age, and maltreatment type. A report can therefore be reasonably stable over time while still differing from prospective records because the two methods capture different information.
A 2024 meta-analysis further found that retrospective measures were more strongly associated with psychopathology than prospective measures. The authors interpreted retrospective measures as partly capturing first-person appraisal and remembered experience. This reinforces an important distinction: a retrospective questionnaire is informative about the person’s reported history and current meaning-making, but its score should not be mistaken for an objective archival reconstruction.
How to Interpret an ACE Score Without Turning It Into a Diagnosis
An ACE score is usually a count of how many specified categories a person endorses. That simplicity made the framework useful for epidemiology, but it is also the source of many misinterpretations.
The original ACE Study and later research found graded associations between cumulative adversity and multiple outcomes at the population level. That finding supports the statement “people reporting more ACE categories, on average, show higher rates of some later difficulties.” It does not support the statement “your score tells us what will happen to you.”
There is no ACE score that means a person definitively “has trauma.” There is no score that proves PTSD. A score of zero does not prove an adversity-free childhood, because a questionnaire may omit relevant experiences. A higher score does not rank people by suffering, resilience, moral worth, or need for treatment.
The familiar use of four or more ACEs as a research grouping should also be kept in context. It can be useful for comparing groups in epidemiological studies, but it is not a clinical border between “healthy” and “traumatized.” The 2020 critique by McLennan, MacMillan, and Afifi specifically raised concerns about limited content coverage and simplistic cumulative scoring in common ACE questionnaires. Contemporary reviews likewise emphasize measurement heterogeneity rather than treating one count as a universal clinical metric.
Questionnaire, Screening Tool, or Diagnostic Assessment?
The terms are often mixed online, so it helps to use them precisely.
A research questionnaire is designed to measure a defined construct in a study or population. A screening instrument is designed to identify people who may warrant closer evaluation. A self-reflection tool can help a person organize thoughts but may not have validated scoring at all. A diagnostic assessment evaluates whether criteria for a clinical disorder are met and considers alternative explanations, severity, impairment, medical factors, developmental context, and comorbidity.
A screening result can be clinically useful without being diagnostic. That is exactly how the VA describes brief PTSD screening: a positive PC-PTSD-5 result should lead to further assessment, preferably with a structured interview. The same logic applies more broadly. Screening narrows a question; diagnosis answers a different and more demanding one.
How to Choose a Questionnaire Based on the Question You Actually Have
If your main question is “Which kinds of adversity do I remember from childhood?”, an ACE-style or broader adversity questionnaire may help organize exposure history. If your question is “Did I experience particular forms of abuse or neglect?”, a maltreatment-focused instrument such as the CTQ-SF is closer to that construct. If your question is “Am I experiencing current symptoms that resemble PTSD?”, a PTSD symptom screener is more relevant than an ACE count. If your question is “Do I meet criteria for PTSD or another disorder?”, a clinical diagnostic assessment is the appropriate level of evaluation.
If your question is “Why am I anxious, depressed, dissociative, avoidant, people pleasing, or struggling in relationships?”, no single childhood questionnaire can provide a causal answer. A useful assessment looks at current symptoms and functioning, developmental history, present stressors, protective relationships, health, substance use, sleep, neurodevelopmental factors, and other plausible contributors rather than forcing every difficulty into one childhood explanation.
When a Childhood Trauma Questionnaire Can Be Useful
Used within its limits, a questionnaire can create a shared vocabulary for experiences that are otherwise difficult to summarize. In research, standardized measures make it possible to compare groups and test associations. In clinical work, a carefully chosen questionnaire can supplement history-taking, identify areas that merit discussion, and reduce the chance that an important domain is overlooked.
For an individual using a self-report tool, the most defensible benefit is often organizational rather than diagnostic. You may notice that a questionnaire names experiences you had not previously grouped together, or that it helps you explain a history to a clinician. That can be useful even when the final score itself has limited individual meaning.
The usefulness of a questionnaire also depends on what happens after it is completed. Sensitive questions can evoke distress, shame, uncertainty, or memories that feel difficult to place. Good practice therefore includes clear explanations of what the score means, what it does not mean, and what support is available if the process becomes upsetting.
When a Questionnaire Is the Wrong Tool
A self-administered childhood trauma test is the wrong tool when the task is to determine whether abuse definitely occurred, establish legal facts, assess a child’s immediate safety, recover uncertain memories, or diagnose a psychiatric disorder. Those tasks require different methods and, in some cases, appropriately trained professionals or safeguarding systems.
It is also the wrong tool when the test itself pushes an interpretation that is broader than the questions support—for example, when an ACE count is converted into a precise PTSD probability, a nervous-system “damage” score, a fixed attachment label, or a claim that an adult relationship pattern proves childhood trauma.
If you are concerned that a child may currently be unsafe, do not rely on an online quiz. Contact an appropriate local child-protection service, pediatric or mental-health professional, or emergency service according to the urgency of the situation.
What If You Do Not Remember Much of Your Childhood?
Limited or uneven autobiographical memory does not, by itself, prove trauma. Childhood amnesia, ordinary forgetting, limited encoding, the passage of time, family context, emotional state, neurological factors, sleep, substance use, and many other influences can affect what people remember.
A questionnaire is therefore least reliable when it pressures you to turn uncertainty into certainty. “I don’t remember” is information. “I’m not sure” is information. Leaving a question unanswered can be more accurate than guessing.
If memories emerge later, their emotional importance can be real without a questionnaire establishing their historical accuracy. The safest approach is to avoid suggestive techniques that tell you what you must have experienced and to work, when needed, with a clinician who can tolerate uncertainty rather than treating symptoms, dreams, images, or relationship patterns as proof of hidden events.
Can a Childhood Trauma Test Explain Your Symptoms Today?
It can contribute context, but it cannot establish a single cause. Childhood adversity is associated in research with elevated risk for a range of later mental and physical health outcomes, yet association is not the same as individual causation.
A person may have substantial childhood adversity and few current symptoms. Another person may have severe current symptoms with few or no experiences captured by a classic ACE checklist. Current difficulties can reflect multiple interacting influences, including later-life events, ongoing relationships, socioeconomic conditions, genetic liability, temperament, health conditions, sleep, substances, discrimination, community environment, and chance.
This is why an evidence-based assessment focuses on the current problem as well as the developmental history. The past matters without becoming a universal explanation for the present.
How Clinicians Assess Trauma-Related Problems
A careful clinical assessment does more than add up events. Depending on the presenting problem, a clinician may ask about exposure history, the timing and duration of experiences, current symptoms, functional impairment, safety, mood, anxiety, dissociation, sleep, substance use, medical conditions, relationships, and other possible explanations. Standardized questionnaires can be added to this process, but they are interpreted alongside the interview rather than replacing it.
For PTSD specifically, the distinction is explicit in official assessment guidance. The VA describes the PCL-5 as a self-report tool with screening and provisional-diagnostic uses, while identifying the clinician-administered CAPS-5 as the diagnostic gold standard. The assessment of another condition requires its own appropriate criteria and tools.
Therapy is then based on the person’s current needs and, when relevant, a diagnosed disorder. Having ACEs does not mean everyone needs trauma-focused therapy, and not having a diagnosis does not mean someone must simply live with distress. Treatment decisions are clinical decisions, not automatic consequences of an adversity score.
A More Useful Way to Read Your Result
Instead of asking “What does this number say about who I am?”, ask what information the questionnaire actually collected. Which experiences did you clearly endorse? Which items were ambiguous? Which important experiences were not asked about? Are you trying to understand exposure history, current symptoms, or a diagnosis? Does the score change any concrete decision about support, safety, or clinical assessment?
A result is most useful when it becomes one piece of a larger picture. It can prompt a conversation. It can help organize a history. It can suggest that a more specific symptom assessment would be appropriate. It can support research. What it cannot do is collapse childhood, memory, physiology, relationships, and mental health into one definitive number.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a definitive test for childhood trauma?
No. There is no single questionnaire that can definitively determine whether a person “has childhood trauma.” Different instruments measure different constructs: adverse experiences, maltreatment history, current post-traumatic symptoms, or specific disorders. The right interpretation depends on the instrument’s purpose and evidence.
Is the ACE test the same as a childhood trauma test?
Not exactly. ACE questionnaires are often marketed online as childhood trauma tests, but the ACE framework measures specified categories of childhood adversity. ACEs and childhood trauma overlap without being interchangeable. A significant traumatic experience may fall outside a classic ACE checklist, and an endorsed ACE does not automatically mean the person developed a trauma-related disorder.
What ACE score means I have trauma?
No ACE score establishes that conclusion. ACE counts are primarily exposure measures used in epidemiological research. Higher counts have been associated with higher rates of some adverse outcomes across groups, but there is no diagnostic ACE cutoff for being “traumatized.”
Does an ACE score of 4 mean I will develop a mental or physical illness?
No. Four or more ACEs is a commonly used research grouping, not an individual prognosis. Group-level dose-response associations describe changes in average risk across populations. They do not determine what will happen to a particular person.
Can a low ACE score rule out childhood trauma?
No. The classic ACE list does not include every potentially traumatic or adverse experience, and it does not measure subjective impact, duration, severity, protective relationships, or every form of adversity. A low count means few categories on that particular checklist were endorsed.
Can a high childhood trauma score diagnose PTSD or complex PTSD?
No. Exposure and diagnosis are different. A diagnosis requires the relevant diagnostic criteria, including current symptoms and impairment, to be assessed. A childhood-adversity questionnaire cannot substitute for that process.
Is the CTQ-SF a diagnosis?
No. The CTQ-SF is a retrospective self-report measure of childhood maltreatment domains. It can provide structured information about reported abuse and neglect, but it does not by itself diagnose a trauma-related mental disorder.
Can an online trauma test recover hidden memories?
No. A questionnaire is not a validated method for recovering hidden memories, and it cannot establish that a memory gap proves trauma. If you are uncertain about memory, avoid tests or practices that pressure you to infer specific events from symptoms, dreams, images, or scores.
Should I take a childhood trauma questionnaire before therapy?
You can, but it is optional. A questionnaire may help you organize what you want to discuss. You can also begin therapy without a score. If a clinician needs standardized information, they can select an instrument that matches the clinical question and explain how the result will be used.
What should I do if a questionnaire makes me feel overwhelmed?
You can stop. You do not need to complete a self-assessment in one sitting or at all. If the questions bring up significant distress, consider discussing the experience with a qualified mental-health professional or another trusted source of support. If there is an immediate safety concern for you or a child, use the appropriate local emergency or safeguarding service rather than relying on an online test.
The Bottom Line
A childhood trauma test is only as meaningful as the construct it measures. ACE questionnaires summarize selected categories of adversity. Maltreatment questionnaires such as the CTQ-SF structure retrospective reports of abuse and neglect. PTSD screeners assess current symptom patterns. Diagnostic interviews determine whether criteria for a disorder are met.
None of these instruments is a universal trauma detector. None can convert a childhood history into a linear damage score. None can prove that a disputed memory is true or false, predict an individual future from an ACE count, or establish that a present-day relationship or mental-health problem was caused by childhood trauma.
Used with those boundaries, questionnaires remain valuable. They can make experiences easier to describe, improve consistency in research and clinical assessment, and help identify questions worth exploring further. The strongest interpretation is usually the most specific one: describe what the measure actually assessed, keep uncertainty where uncertainty exists, and make clinical decisions from the person’s current needs rather than from a number alone.
Related Articles
References
Baldwin, J. R., Reuben, A., Newbury, J. B., & Danese, A. (2019). Agreement between prospective and retrospective measures of childhood maltreatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry, 76(6), 584–593. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.0097
Baldwin, J. R., Coleman, O., Francis, E. R., & Danese, A. (2024). Prospective and retrospective measures of child maltreatment and their association with psychopathology: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry, 81(8), 769–781. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.0818
Bernstein, D. P., Stein, J. A., Newcomb, M. D., et al. (2003). Development and validation of a brief screening version of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27(2), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(02)00541-0
Carey, O. G., Dempsey, M., Minihane, K., & Murphy, G. (2026). When, where, and how often do individuals recover memories of traumatic experiences? A systematic review. Memory, 34(2), 238–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2025.2601699
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2026). About adverse childhood experiences. https://www.cdc.gov/aces/about/index.html
Coleman, O., Al-Jaber, M., Aponsu, G., Stahl, D., & Danese, A. (2026). Stability of childhood maltreatment self-reports: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nature Mental Health, 4(8), 1315–1328. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-026-00677-7
Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., et al. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8
Georgieva, S., Tomás, J. M., & Navarro-Pérez, J. J. (2021). Systematic review and critical appraisal of Childhood Trauma Questionnaire—Short Form (CTQ-SF). Child Abuse & Neglect, 120, 105223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105223
McLennan, J. D., MacMillan, H. L., & Afifi, T. O. (2020). Questioning the use of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) questionnaires. Child Abuse & Neglect, 101, 104331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104331
Mosler, F., Christogianni, A., Singleton, S., et al. (2025). Assessing exposure to childhood adversity in adults: A systematic review of validated self-report childhood adversity questionnaires. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics. https://doi.org/10.1159/000547529
Trejos, R. F., & Kirby, R. S. (2026). Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs): What have we learned and what’s next? Annual Review of Public Health, 47, 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-071723-011207
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, National Center for PTSD. (n.d.). Primary Care PTSD Screen for DSM-5 (PC-PTSD-5). https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/assessment/screens/pc-ptsd.asp
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, National Center for PTSD. (n.d.). PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/assessment/adult-sr/ptsd-checklist.asp
World Health Organization. (2020). Adverse Childhood Experiences International Questionnaire (ACE-IQ). https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/adverse-childhood-experiences-international-questionnaire-%28ace-iq%29