(PS4-B29) Development and Exploratory Factor Analysis of a Trauma-related Blame Scale

Development and Exploratory Factor Analysis of a Trauma-Related Blame Scale

In the aftermath of traumatic events, survivors often experience maladaptive trauma-related blame cognitions that have relevance for psychopathology and treatment. Theory and qualitative work suggest complexity for both the type and function of blame cognitions. For example, the adaptiveness of blame thoughts is sometimes posited to differ depending on whether the blame is toward the self versus others, behaviors versus character, etc. The 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual includes trauma-related blame to self or others as a symptom of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Despite a recognition of potential clinical implications of posttraumatic blame and blame types, little empirical evidence is available for blame targets besides the self, nor for more nuanced aspects (e.g., character vs. behavior blame), with regard to the development, course, and resolution of these cognitions. Research in this area is perhaps stymied by the limitations of existing quantitative measures of trauma-related blame, as available measures are often rooted in a single trauma type (most often rape) and typically assess self-blame only. The aim of the present study was to develop a trauma-related blame scale that could be employed to assess posttraumatic blame following any type of interpersonal traumatic experience and would include subscales for various blame typologies. Items were developed with consideration to blame-related theories, qualitative research on blame and causal attributions, examination of past measures of trauma-related blame, and pilot data collected in an initial phase of the present study. A total of 767 items were created  and reviewed by subject matter experts for feedback on item content. Following the implementation of feedback and findings from a content analysis, 298 items remained. A sample of survivors of interpersonal traumatic events (physical assault or assault with a weapon 51%, sexual assault 37%, military combat 3%, captivity 3%, and violent traumatic loss 6%) completed the measure via a web-based crowdsourcing participant pool. Following data cleaning, an exploratory factor analysis was performed on a final dataset containing responses of  N = 965 participants. Items with loadings below .50 or items with cross-loadings of .30 across more than one factor were excluded from further analyses. The final model included a total of 65 items that loaded onto 10 factors: Self-Blame, five forms of Perpetrator-related Blame (i.e., Perpetrator Harmful Intentions, Perpetrator Character, Perpetrator Manipulation, Perpetrator Ignorance, and Perpetrator Upbringing), Blame to Others, Blame to Society, Higher Power Blame, and Random/No One is to Blame. For the 243 survivors who reported another victim/survivor was present at the time of the traumatic event, an additional factor of 15-items for other-victim blame emerged. Findings highlight that trauma-related blame may be more nuanced than is typically measured or studied. The next stage of this research will examine the construct validity and further validation within clinical populations.