Theoretical and Quantitative Disconnect When Modeling Adverse Childhood Experiences Using a Common Factor Framework: An Argument for Causal Indicator Models in Stressor Research

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are highly impactful stressors that increase individuals' risk for a plethora of negative developmental and health outcomes. Furthermore, minoritized groups and under-resourced individuals are at higher risk for ACEs, positioning these stressors as possible mechanisms driving health disparities. Given this fact, a strong methodological foundation is necessary to ensure maximal clinical value. As emphasized by Jensen et al. (https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.14050), this foundation must begin with rigorous ACEs measurement-a goal that requires careful matching between ACEs measures and the scoring procedures used. To amplify their message while advocating for an alternative approach that may better reflect the conceptualization of ACEs, we write this commentary to highlight the merits of causal indicator models as a better match between theory and methodology.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Child Development
Published
2025-04-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.14230
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Child Abuse and Trauma
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.31

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Theoretical and Quantitative Disconnect When Modeling Adverse Childhood Experiences Using a Common Factor Framework: An Argument for Causal Indicator Models in Stressor Research

George M. Slavich, Daniel P. Moriarity
1 citations
Child Development
Child Abuse and Trauma
2.31
article

Theoretical and Quantitative Disconnect When Modeling Adverse Childhood Experiences Using a Common Factor Framework: An Argument for Causal Indicator Models in Stressor Research

George M. Slavich, Daniel P. Moriarity
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are highly impactful stressors that increase individuals' risk for a plethora of negative developmental and health outcomes. Furthermore, minoritized groups and under-resourced individuals are at higher risk for ACEs, positioning these stressors as possible mechanisms driving health disparities. Given this fact, a strong methodological foundation is necessary to ensure maximal clinical value. As emphasized by Jensen et al. (https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.14050), this foundation must begin with rigorous ACEs measurement-a goal that requires careful matching between ACEs measures and the scoring procedures used. To amplify their message while advocating for an alternative approach that may better reflect the conceptualization of ACEs, we write this commentary to highlight the merits of causal indicator models as a better match between theory and methodology.

Child DevelopmentVol. 96(4)
University of California, Los Angeles (US), Neurobehavioral Systems (US)
National Institute of Mental Health
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Child Abuse and Trauma
2.31
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.