Dimensional Modeling of Adverse Childhood Experiences: An Empirical Analysis and Critique

Abstract

Dimensional models of adversity are growing in popularity, but they have also been subjected to critique. For this analysis, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) data were drawn from a cohort of low-income adults to evaluate the Dimensional Model of Adversity and Psychopathology, which distinguishes experiences of threat and deprivation, and a recent extension of the life history model that differentiates three dimensions: (1) harshness/threat; (2) harshness/deprivation; (3) unpredictability. Confirmatory factor analyses of an expanded ACE assessment showed that both models fit the data well, though there were signs of low discriminant validity between dimensions. Harshness/threat was more strongly correlated with some physical and mental health outcomes and unpredictability was more strongly correlated with some indicators of risk behavior. Findings were largely consistent across models using latent measures and basic ACE scores. Further research is needed that compares dimensional models to cumulative risk models that are rudimentary but highly replicable.