BACKGROUND: The List of Threatening Experiences (LTE) questionnaire is frequently used to assess stressful events; however, studies of its psychometric properties are scarce. We examined the LTE's reliability, factorial structure, construct validity and explored the association between LTE scores and psychosocial variables and mental disorders. METHOD: This study involved interviewing 5442 primary care attendees from Spain. Associations between four different methods of quantifying LTE scores, psychosocial factors, major depression (CIDI), anxiety disorders (PRIME-MD), alcohol misuse and dependence (AUDIT) were measured. RESULTS: The LTE showed high test-retest reliability (Kappa range=0.61-0.87) and low internal consistency (α=0.44). Tetrachoric factorial analysis yielded four factors (spousal and relational problems; employment and financial problems; personal problems; illness and bereavement in close persons). Logistic multilevel regression found a strong association between greater social support and a lower occurrence of stressful events (OR range=0.36-0.79). The association between religious-spiritual beliefs and the LTE, was weaker. The association between mental disorders and LTE scores was greater for depression (OR range=1.64-2.57) than anxiety (OR range=1.35-1.97), though the highest ORs were obtained with alcohol dependence (OR range=2.86-4.80). The ordinal score (ordinal regression) was more sensitive to detect the strength of association with mental disorders. LIMITATIONS: We are unable to distinguish the direction of the association between stressful events, psychosocial factors and mental disorders, due to our cross-sectional design of the study. CONCLUSIONS: The LTE is a valid and reliable measure of stress in mental health, and the strength of association with mental disorders depends on the method of quantifying LTE scores.
BACKGROUND: The List of Threatening Experiences (LTE) questionnaire is frequently used to assess stressful events; however, studies of its psychometric properties are scarce. We examined the LTE's reliability, factorial structure, construct validity and explored the association between LTE scores and psychosocial variables and mental disorders. METHOD: This study involved interviewing 5442 primary care attendees from Spain. Associations between four different methods of quantifying LTE scores, psychosocial factors, major depression (CIDI), anxiety disorders (PRIME-MD), alcohol misuse and dependence (AUDIT) were measured. RESULTS: The LTE showed high test-retest reliability (Kappa range=0.61-0.87) and low internal consistency (α=0.44). Tetrachoric factorial analysis yielded four factors (spousal and relational problems; employment and financial problems; personal problems; illness and bereavement in close persons). Logistic multilevel regression found a strong association between greater social support and a lower occurrence of stressful events (OR range=0.36-0.79). The association between religious-spiritual beliefs and the LTE, was weaker. The association between mental disorders and LTE scores was greater for depression (OR range=1.64-2.57) than anxiety (OR range=1.35-1.97), though the highest ORs were obtained with alcohol dependence (OR range=2.86-4.80). The ordinal score (ordinal regression) was more sensitive to detect the strength of association with mental disorders. LIMITATIONS: We are unable to distinguish the direction of the association between stressful events, psychosocial factors and mental disorders, due to our cross-sectional design of the study. CONCLUSIONS: The LTE is a valid and reliable measure of stress in mental health, and the strength of association with mental disorders depends on the method of quantifying LTE scores.
Authors: Juan Ángel Bellón; Juan de Dios Luna; Michael King; Irwin Nazareth; Emma Motrico; María Josefa GildeGómez-Barragán; Francisco Torres-González; Carmen Montón-Franco; Marta Sánchez-Celaya; Miguel Ángel Díaz-Barreiros; Catalina Vicens; Patricia Moreno-Peral Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Jennifer M Buchman-Schmitt; Carol Chu; Matthew S Michaels; Jennifer L Hames; Caroline Silva; Christopher R Hagan; Jessica D Ribeiro; Edward A Selby; Thomas E Joiner Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2017-06-27 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Robert M Bossarte; Ronald C Kessler; Andrew A Nierenberg; Ambarish Chattopadhyay; Pim Cuijpers; Angel Enrique; Phyllis M Foxworth; Sarah M Gildea; Bea Herbeck Belnap; Marc W Haut; Kari B Law; William D Lewis; Howard Liu; Alexander R Luedtke; Wilfred R Pigeon; Larry A Rhodes; Derek Richards; Bruce L Rollman; Nancy A Sampson; Cara M Stokes; John Torous; Tyler D Webb; Jose R Zubizarreta Journal: Trials Date: 2022-06-20 Impact factor: 2.728
Authors: Baptiste Pignon; Mohamed Lajnef; James B Kirkbride; Hugo Peyre; Aziz Ferchiou; Jean-Romain Richard; Grégoire Baudin; Sarah Tosato; Hannah Jongsma; Lieuwe de Haan; Ilaria Tarricone; Miguel Bernardo; Eva Velthorst; Mauro Braca; Celso Arango; Manuel Arrojo; Julio Bobes; Cristina Marta Del-Ben; Marta Di Forti; Charlotte Gayer-Anderson; Peter B Jones; Caterina La Cascia; Antonio Lasalvia; Paulo Rossi Menezes; Diego Quattrone; Julio Sanjuán; Jean-Paul Selten; Andrea Tortelli; Pierre-Michel Llorca; Jim van Os; Bart P F Rutten; Robin M Murray; Craig Morgan; Marion Leboyer; Andrei Szöke; Franck Schürhoff Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Patricia Moreno-Peral; Juan de Dios Luna; Louise Marston; Michael King; Irwin Nazareth; Emma Motrico; María Josefa GildeGómez-Barragán; Francisco Torres-González; Carmen Montón-Franco; Marta Sánchez-Celaya; Miguel Ángel Díaz-Barreiros; Catalina Vicens; Carlos Muñoz-Bravo; Juan Ángel Bellón Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 3.240