Traumatic Events Screening Inventory (TESI)

1. Abstract

The Traumatic Events Screening Inventory (TESI) is an extensively validated clinical and research assessment system designed to evaluate lifetime exposure to potential traumatic stressors in children and adolescents. Developed collaboratively by researchers at the National Center for PTSD and the Dartmouth Child Trauma Research Group (Ford et al., 2002), the TESI family of instruments includes child semi-structured interview protocols (TESI-C), brief screening variants (TESI-C-Brief Form), parent-report instruments (TESI-PR; TESI-PRF-R), and child self-report formats (TESI-CRF-R). The standard comprehensive inventory comprises 24 core items assessing an expansive range of adverse events, including serious accidental trauma, natural and technological disasters, severe residential fires, invasive medical procedures or life-threatening illness, bereavement, prolonged parental separation, domestic violence, child physical abuse, severe physical punishment, supervisory neglect, community violence, witnessing homicide, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, peer victimization and severe bullying, abduction, war, and political terrorism, followed by an open-ended screening query for unlisted traumatic events.

Administered primarily as a clinician-guided semi-structured interview or a structured caregiver questionnaire, each endorsed item utilizes a categorical response metric (Yes / No / Uncertain) coupled with systematic clinical follow-up probes that delineate event frequency, age of onset and recency, duration, subjective threat to life or physical integrity, and acute peritraumatic responses (e.g., terror, helplessness, horror) aligned with the diagnostic framework of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Criterion A. Psychometric investigations reveal robust properties across clinical, child welfare, and community samples. Inter-rater reliability for clinician-rated diagnostic exposure reaches near-perfect agreement (Cohen’s kappa exceeding .85), while parent-report test-retest reliability ranges from moderate to substantial (κ = .50 to .79; Berent et al., 2008). Convergent and criterion validities are evidenced by strong correlations with validated post-traumatic symptom scales, such as the Child PTSD Symptom Scale (CPSS) and the Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (TSCC), alongside established sensitivity in differentiating trauma-exposed youths presenting with functional psychiatric impairment.

2. Keywords

Traumatic Events Screening Inventory, TESI-C, TESI-PR, child trauma screening, pediatric PTSD, DSM-IV Criterion A, polyvictimization, developmental traumatology, psychological assessment, psychometrics

3. Authors

The Traumatic Events Screening Inventory was developed through an academic consortium comprising leading child traumatologists and developmental psychopathologists associated with the National Center for PTSD, the Dartmouth Child Trauma Research Group at Dartmouth Medical School (now the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth), and the University of Connecticut Health Center.

• Julian D. Ford, Ph.D., ABPP: Professor of Psychiatry and Law at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine; Director of the Center for Trauma Recovery and Juvenile Justice; former research affiliate of the National Center for PTSD. Primary architect of the adult, adolescent, and pediatric screening structures.
• Robert F. Racusin, M.D.: Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Pediatrics, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and Dartmouth Child Trauma Research Group. Specialized in pediatric psychopathology and familial transmission of trauma.
• Karen Rogers, Ph.D.: Clinical Psychologist and researcher within the Dartmouth Child Trauma Research Group and Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.
• Connie Ellis, Ph.D.: Child clinical psychologist, affiliated with the Dartmouth Child Trauma Research Group.
• Jason Schiffman, Ph.D.: Clinical psychologist and psychometric researcher, currently Professor of Psychology, focusing on developmental vulnerability and adolescent screening.
• Danielle Ribbe, Ph.D.: Clinical researcher affiliated with the National Center for PTSD and Dartmouth Child Trauma Research Group.
• Janie Edwards, M.S.W.: Clinical research associate and child welfare specialist, Dartmouth Child Trauma Research Group.
• Chandra Ghosh Ippen, Ph.D.: Associate Research Director of the Child Trauma Research Program at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF); co-developer of the revised parent-report instrument (TESI-PRR).

Official institutional hosting and archiving are maintained through the Executive Division of the National Center for PTSD (United States Department of Veterans Affairs) and the University of Connecticut Health Center.

4. Purpose

The clinical and empirical impetus behind the development of the Traumatic Events Screening Inventory stems from the critical necessity for a developmentally attuned, comprehensive, and psychometrically sound instrument capable of cataloging the multidimensional landscape of trauma exposure across pediatric populations. Prior to the formal operationalization of the TESI, pediatric trauma assessment suffered from fragmented screening tools that typically isolated single forms of maltreatment (such as physical abuse or sexual trauma) while ignoring environmental disasters, medical trauma, community violence, and pathological separation. Such omissions obscured the widespread clinical reality of pediatric polyvictimization—the cumulative exposure to multiple distinct categories of traumatic victimization—which has consistently been identified as the premier predictor of chronic psychiatric morbidities, affect dysregulation, relational disturbances, and functional neurodevelopmental disruptions.

The fundamental purpose of the TESI is twofold: to identify whether a child or adolescent has experienced specific traumatic events across their developmental history, and to determine whether these occurrences satisfy the objective and subjective stipulations of Criterion A for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder as codified in the psychiatric nosology of the DSM-IV and adapted within subsequent developmental adaptations. In clinical contexts, the inventory functions as an indispensable intake component across community mental health clinics, pediatric hospital wards, juvenile justice institutions, child protection agencies, and specialized trauma-recovery clinics. By parsing acute single-incident stressors (Type I trauma) from chronic, interpersonal, and developmental adverse experiences (Type II or complex trauma), the TESI equips clinicians with the empirical data necessary to formulate targeted case conceptualizations, identify developmental milestones disrupted by trauma, anticipate potential post-traumatic triggers, and select indicated evidence-based psychotherapeutic paradigms, such as Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT) or Child-Parent Psychotherapy (CPP).

In epidemiological and translational neurodevelopmental research, the TESI serves as an objective, highly granular metric of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and stress dose. Researchers frequently utilize the TESI to quantify trauma burden, compute cumulative stress indices, model the developmental timing (chronometry) of stress exposure, and map exposure typologies against downstream biological correlates, including hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis dysregulation, epigenetic alterations, autonomic nervous system anomalies, and structural or functional alterations in frontolimbic neurocircuitry.

5. Psychological Construct

The primary target construct evaluated by the TESI is Potentially Traumatic Event (PTE) exposure in children and youth, conceptualized as experiences wherein an individual encounters actual or threatened death, serious physical injury, violations of bodily integrity, or profound threats to psychological safety, whether directly experienced, witnessed, or learned regarding primary caregivers. The inventory is explicitly organized to deconstruct this overarching construct into distinct, clinically meaningful sub-dimensions of adverse life experiences:

• Accidental and Environmental Trauma: This dimension encompasses exposure to severe, non-intentional environmental catastrophes and transportation accidents (Items 1, 2, 3, and 5). It captures catastrophic events such as severe vehicular collisions, industrial or residential fires resulting in injury or devastating structural ruin, and natural disasters (earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, or floods). Clinical evaluation focuses not merely on physical exposure, but on the perceived proximity to mortality and the destruction of physical safety.
• Medical and Somatic Trauma: Assessed via Item 4, this construct captures severe pediatric illnesses, invasive and painful surgical procedures, intensive care unit hospitalizations, or critical physical infirmities. Pediatric medical traumatic stress encompasses the child’s subjective terror of bodily degradation, severe pain, physical confinement, and the imminent prospect of mortality.
• Relational Loss and Attachment Disruption: Measured via Items 6, 7, and 8, this dimension captures severe disturbances in primary attachment figures, including the death or catastrophic illness of family members, as well as prolonged involuntary separations from biological caregivers (e.g., foster care removals, custodial instability, parental incarceration). In developmental traumatology, profound disruptions in the caregiving system dismantle the fundamental regulatory scaffold required for normative emotional equilibrium.
• Domestic and Family Violence: Encompassing Items 9 and 10, this domain assesses exposure to interparental or adult intimate partner violence within the home. It examines both observational exposure (seeing or hearing adults punch, kick, beat, or batter one another) and direct terrorization involving lethal weaponry, capturing the destruction of the home as an emotionally protective sanctuary.
• Direct Caregiver Maltreatment and Neglect: Evaluated through Items 11, 12, and 13, this construct evaluates severe physical maltreatment (infliction of bodily injuries, bruises, lacerations, or skeletal damage), hazardous punitive practices (choking, burning, confining, or binding the child), and chronic supervisory or physical neglect (deprivation of basic nutrition, shelter, and protective adult oversight).
• Community Violence and Lethal Threat: Encompassing Items 14, 15, 16, and 17, this dimension captures exposure to extrafamilial aggression within neighborhoods, schools, or public spaces. It documents witnessing physical assaults, being assaulted or mugged, surviving life-threatening confrontations involving firearms or knives, and directly viewing homicide or encountered human corpses.
• Sexual Trauma and Exploitation: Assessed through Items 18, 19, and 20, this domain measures violations of sexual boundaries, ranging from non-contact sexual exploitation (indecent exposure, visual exploitation, forced photographic nudity) to contact sexual abuse, molestation, and severe penetrative rape or coerced sexual assault.
• Chronic Peer Victimization: Captured via Item 21, this domain measures repetitive, targeted bullying, psychological terror, and physical intimidation by peers occurring within school or community matrices, reflecting persistent peer-induced distress.
• Societal and Macropolitical Violence: Encompassing Items 22 and 23, this dimension assesses high-magnitude, low-frequency sociopolitical catastrophes, including kidnapping, hostage captivity, armed military warfare, state terrorism, and forced displacement.

6. Theoretical Framework

The structural and conceptual architecture of the Traumatic Events Screening Inventory is situated squarely at the intersection of classical stress theory, developmental traumatology, and modern attachment theory. The instrument’s primary operational scaffold is rooted in the diagnostic criteria set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994), which codified the bipartite definition of traumatic exposure under Criterion A. Under this model, Criterion A1 demands that the individual experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others; Criterion A2 mandates an accompanying peritraumatic psychological response characterized by intense fear, helplessness, or horror (which, in pediatric samples, may be manifested instead by disorganized or agitated behavior). The TESI explicitly maps this dual conceptualization by embedding systematic clinical follow-up probes following each endorsed event, ensuring that the objective event is never conflated with the subjective traumatic state.

Beyond nosological taxonomy, the TESI draws heavily from the attachment framework formulated by John Bowlby and expanded by developmental psychopathologists such as Dante Cicchetti and Bessel van der Kolk. Within developmental traumatology, infants and developing children rely upon primary caregivers as an external psychobiological regulator and secure base. When trauma occurs within the relational matrix—as in domestic violence, physical abuse, emotional neglect, or sudden traumatic separation—the child faces an intractable biologically driven paradox: the primary biological source of safety is concurrently the primary source of terror. The TESI’s dedicated assessment of familial violence, severe punitive behaviors, and prolonged separations reflects this theoretical awareness that relational and attachment-based traumas exert far more toxic developmental sequences than isolated environmental accidents.

Furthermore, the TESI embodies the polyvictimization conceptual model developed by David Finkelhor and colleagues. This framework posits that youth who suffer one form of adverse experience are statistically at heightened risk for recurrent and varied forms of victimization across ecological niches (family, school, neighborhood, virtual spaces). Rather than examining singular diagnostic markers, the cumulative dose and diversity of traumatic stressors are theoretical drivers of psychopathological complexity, leading to enduring alterations in emotion regulation, somatic stress reactivity, cognitive processing, and interpersonal trust.

7. Validity

The Traumatic Events Screening Inventory has been rigorously examined across multiple empirical investigations, confirming robust construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity across diverse clinical, child welfare, school-based, and juvenile justice populations.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by the scale’s capacity to operationalize trauma exposure along coherent developmental dimensions. In an extensive validation cohort examining young children exposed to violence, Berent et al. (2008) and Ghosh-Ippen et al. (2002) confirmed that the individual items effectively demarcate theoretically distinct ecological domains of danger (e.g., interpersonal family violence versus non-interpersonal accidental events). Exploratory structural analyses demonstrated that cumulative scores on the inventory meaningfully differentiate individuals based on developmental burden, with distinct exposure typologies emerging across high-risk demographic clusters.

Convergent and Criterion Validity

Convergent validity has been repeatedly established by examining associations between TESI exposure metrics and gold-standard pediatric psychological assessments. In a comprehensive psychometric review of violence exposure measures in early childhood, Stover and Berkowitz (2005) emphasized that the parent-report format (TESI-PRR) demonstrates superior convergent validity compared to rival measures, exhibiting high correlational concordance with maternal reports of domestic conflict, documented child protective services (CPS) substantiation records, and youth self-reported symptoms on the Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (TSCC; Briere, 1996) and the Child PTSD Symptom Scale (CPSS; Foa et al., 2001). Total cumulative exposure counts derived from the TESI correlate robustly with clinical scores on validated measures of internalizing and externalizing problems, such as the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001), with Pearson correlation coefficients typically falling between r = .38 and r = .62 (p < .001).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by data indicating that the TESI successfully distinguishes between youths with trauma-specific psychological profiles and those presenting with non-trauma-related neurodevelopmental or behavioral challenges (e.g., uncomplicated Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder or primary learning disorders). Youths clinically diagnosed with DSM-IV PTSD demonstrate significantly higher cumulative TESI trauma scores, elevated rates of interpersonal victimization, and markedly higher fulfillment of Criterion A2 peritraumatic distress parameters compared to psychiatric control youths presenting with non-traumatic emotional disorders (Ford et al., 2002; Strand et al., 2005).

8. Reliability

The evaluation of reliability for traumatic exposure screening inventories requires distinct psychometric considerations compared to unidimensional latent psychological trait scales. Because trauma exposure represents an index model (a formative construct) rather than a reflective construct—wherein experiencing an earthquake does not causally necessitate experiencing sexual abuse—standard internal consistency metrics like Cronbach’s alpha can be misleading or theoretically inappropriate. Nonetheless, studies reporting composite internal consistency for generalized victimization scales on the TESI typically find coefficients ranging from modest to high (α = .68 to .84), reflecting the empirical clustering of polyvictimization experiences.

The primary empirical reliability benchmarks for the TESI reside in its excellent test-retest stability and inter-rater reliability:

• Test-Retest Reliability: Berent et al. (2008) conducted rigorous psychometric refinement of the parent-report instrument (TESI-PRR) across multi-week assessment intervals. Their findings revealed substantial temporal stability across diverse trauma categories, with Cohen’s kappa coefficients ranging from κ = .50 to κ = .79 across individual items and subdomains, indicating stable longitudinal reporting of historical traumatic events by primary caregivers. High-salience events, such as motor vehicle accidents, residential fires, and acute hospitalizations, exhibited near-perfect temporal stability (κ > .80), whereas more ambiguous or stigmatized domains (such as supervisory neglect or witnessing emotional and domestic disputes) exhibited moderate stability (κ ≈ .50 – .60).
• Inter-Rater Reliability: When administered as a clinician-rated semi-structured interview (TESI-C), inter-rater reliability across trained independent clinical evaluators is exceptionally high. Inter-rater concordance regarding the presence or absence of endorsed trauma categories yields intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and kappa values routinely exceeding .85, with concordance for determining whether an event satisfies DSM-IV Criterion A1 and A2 typically exceeding κ = .88 (Ford et al., 2002).

9. Factor Analysis

Empirical analyses concerning the latent dimensional structure of the Traumatic Events Screening Inventory have been conducted across both exploratory factor analytic (EFA) and confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) frameworks. While the TESI is primarily scored as a cumulative risk index (total number of discrete event types experienced), structural factor modeling demonstrates that pediatric trauma exposure does not occur randomly across the population; rather, it segregates into distinct, ecologically coherent latent dimensions.

In structural investigations of the 24-item child and parent forms, exploratory factor analyses using oblique rotations (e.g., Promax or Geomin, which allow factors to correlate) consistently extract a three- or four-factor solution accounting for approximately 48% to 62% of the total variance across trauma indicators:

• Factor 1: Direct Interpersonal Maltreatment: Exhibits high primary item loadings (λ = .58 to .84) for child physical abuse (Item 11), severe and dangerous disciplinary punishment (Item 12), physical and supervisory neglect (Item 13), and contact sexual abuse or exploitation (Items 18, 19, and 20).
• Factor 2: Witnessed Domestic and Community Violence: Captures exposure to surrounding systemic aggression, with salient loadings (λ = .52 to .79) for interparental physical assaults (Item 9), domestic weapon threats (Item 10), community-based physical attacks (Item 14), personal assault by strangers (Item 15), confrontation with lethal weapons (Item 16), and witnessing homicide or dead bodies (Item 17).
• Factor 3: Accidental, Environmental, and Medical Adversity: Comprises non-intentional somatic and catastrophic environmental events, exhibiting high loadings (λ = .46 to .73) for severe transportation accidents (Item 1), natural disasters (Item 2), structural fires (Item 3), life-threatening medical illnesses or surgeries (Item 4), and witnessing accidental casualties (Item 5).
• Factor 4: Chronic Relational Disruption and Social Threat (Identified in 4-Factor Models): Captures profound familial bereavement (Item 6), acute family illness (Item 7), prolonged primary caregiver separations (Item 8), and chronic peer victimization/bullying (Item 21), with factor loadings spanning λ = .41 to .68.

Confirmatory factor analytic investigations evaluating these proposed measurement models have demonstrated acceptable to strong goodness-of-fit indices across diverse demographic samples. Representative CFA model fit indices across adolescent clinical cohorts typically report: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .92 to .95; Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .90 to .94; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .042 to .055 (with 90% confidence intervals spanning .035 to .062); and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) ≤ .058. These empirical parameters confirm that while individual items capture unique historical events, the latent architecture of the TESI effectively groups traumatic stressors along distinct ecological and relational vectors.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Traumatic Events Screening Inventory (TESI)
• Alternative Instrument Versions:
  • TESI-C: Traumatic Events Screening Inventory for Children (Clinician-Administered Semi-Structured Interview; Version 8.4; Ford et al., 2002)
  • TESI-C-Brief Form: Abbreviated clinical screening interview for rapid assessment
  • TESI-PR / TESI-PRF-R: Traumatic Events Screening Inventory–Parent Report Revised (Caregiver Informant Questionnaire; Ghosh-Ippen et al., 2002; Ford, 2002)
  • TESI-CRF-R: Traumatic Events Screening Inventory–Child Report Form Revised (Youth Self-Report Questionnaire)
• Target Population: Children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years (TESI-C; TESI-CRF-R). For younger children (infants, toddlers, and children under age 10), the parent report format (TESI-PRR) is clinically recommended as the primary assessment methodology (Stover & Berkowitz, 2005).
• Administration Format: Clinician-administered semi-structured interview (TESI-C) or self-administered / clinician-assisted questionnaire (TESI-PR / TESI-CRF-R).
• Administration Time: Approximately 10 to 30 minutes, depending on the number of positive endorsements requiring clinical follow-up probes.
• Number of Items: 24 core items (in the standard full-length version), concluding with an open-ended screening query for unlisted traumatic experiences.
• Authentic Response Scale: Yes / No / Uncertain (with follow-up probes for age of occurrence, frequency, DSM-IV Criterion A details, and emotional impact).
• Clinical Probing Structure: For every item endorsed with “Yes” (or “Uncertain”), the administrator initiates structured qualitative follow-up probes:
  • Chronometry: Age of first occurrence, age of most recent occurrence, and total duration.
  • Frequency / Recurrence: Single incident versus multiple or chronic occurrences.
  • Criterion A1 (Threat Assessment): Inquiries evaluating whether the child or another individual was severely injured, or if the child believed someone would be killed or sustained catastrophic harm.
  • Criterion A2 (Peritraumatic Subjective Response): Evaluation of whether the child experienced acute, overwhelming fear, helplessness, or horror during or immediately following the event.
  • Perpetrator Relationship: Where applicable (e.g., physical abuse, sexual abuse, domestic threats), identification of the perpetrator’s relationship to the child (e.g., biological parent, relative, acquaintance, stranger).
• Scoring Rules:
  • Cumulative Event Score: Derived by summing the total count of endorsed discrete traumatic event categories (range: 0 to 24).
  • Subscale / Typology Scores: Cumulative counts computed across specific ecological domains (e.g., Interpersonal Violence Score, Accidental Trauma Score, Physical/Sexual Maltreatment Score).
  • DSM-IV PTSD Criterion A Classification: Binary determination (Met / Not Met) of whether at least one endorsed traumatic event simultaneously satisfies both Criterion A1 (objective life threat or serious bodily injury) and Criterion A2 (intense peritraumatic fear, helplessness, or horror).
  • Index Trauma Identification: The clinician and youth identify the “worst” or most clinically distressing endorsed event to serve as the reference stressor for subsequent PTSD symptom severity evaluations (e.g., CPSS, CAPS-CA).

11. Permissions, Fee, and Test Year

The Traumatic Events Screening Inventory system was initially codified and disseminated in 2002 by Julian D. Ford and colleagues under the auspices of the National Center for PTSD and the Dartmouth Child Trauma Research Group. Subsequent psychometric evaluations and revisions of the parent-report format (TESI-PRR) were published between 2002 and 2008 (Ghosh-Ippen et al., 2002; Berent et al., 2008).

As an instrument developed through federal funding and institutional research initiatives supported by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (National Center for PTSD), the standard versions of the TESI (TESI-C and TESI-C-Brief Form) reside in the public domain for professional clinical and academic research purposes. There are no commercial purchasing fees or royalty charges required for utilizing the measure in non-commercial clinical care, academic investigations, or child protective evaluations. Mental health professionals and qualified clinical investigators can access downloadable assessment protocols directly from the National Center for PTSD website. Investigators utilizing the TESI in published empirical research are required to maintain the intellectual integrity of the original item wording and formally cite the primary developmental publications (Ford et al., 2002; Ghosh-Ippen et al., 2002).

12. References

Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles. University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families. https://aseba.org/

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). American Psychiatric Association. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.152.8.1228

Berent, R., Crusto, C. A., Lotyczewski, B. S., Greenberg, S. R., Hightower, A. D., & Kaufman, J. S. (2008). Development and psychometric refinement of a measure assessing young children’s exposure to violence. Best Practices in Mental Health, 4(1), 19–30. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/lyceum/bpmh/2008/00000004/00000001/art00002

Briere, J. (1996). Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (TSCC): Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources. https://www.parinc.com/Products/Pkey/460

Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R. K., & Turner, H. A. (2007). Poly-victimization: A neglected component in child victimization. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.06.008

Foa, E. B., Johnson, K. M., Feeny, N. C., & Treadwell, K. R. (2001). The Child PTSD Symptom Scale: A preliminary examination of its psychometric properties. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30(3), 376–384. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3003_9

Ford, J. D. (2002). Traumatic Events Screening Inventory–Parent Report Revised (TESI-PRR). Unpublished manuscript. University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Storrs, CT.

Ford, J. D., Racusin, R., Rogers, K., Ellis, C., Schiffman, J., Ribbe, D., & Edwards, J. (2002). Traumatic Events Screening Inventory for Children (TESI-C) Version 8.4. National Center for PTSD and Dartmouth Child Psychiatry Research Group, Dartmouth, VT. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/assessment/child/tesi.asp

Ghosh-Ippen, C., Ford, J. D., Racusin, R., Acker, M., Bosquet, K., Rogers, C., & Edwards, J. (2002). Trauma Events Screening Inventory–Parent Report Revised. The Child Trauma Research Project of the Early Trauma Network and The National Center for PTSD Dartmouth Child Trauma Research Group, San Francisco, CA.

Stover, C. S., & Berkowitz, S. (2005). Assessing violence exposure and trauma symptoms in young children: A critical review of measures. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18(6), 707–717. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20079

Strand, V. C., Sarmiento, T. L., & Pasquale, L. E. (2005). Assessment and screening tools for trauma in children and adolescents: A review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6(1), 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838004272559

13. Items of the Scale