Parent Report of Post-traumatic Stress Symptoms
- Overview
- Training
- Parallel/Alternate Forms
- Psychometrics
- Translation Quality
- Population Information
- Pros & Cons/References
Overview
Acronym:
PROPS
Citation:
Greenwald, R., & Rubin, A. (1999). Brief assessment of children's post-traumatic symptoms: Development and preliminary validation of parent and child scales. Research on Social Work Practice, 9, 61-75.
Obtain(Email/Website):
cti@childtrauma.com / www.childtrauma.com
Cost:
Cost Involved
Copyrighted:
Yes
Measure Description:
The PROPS is a parent-report measure for children and adolescents that assesses a broad range of post-traumatic symptoms, with or without an identified trauma, and can be used to measure changes in symptomatology over time.
Domain(s) Assessed :
Trauma Exposure/Reminders
Language(s) :
English
Bosnian
Dutch
Farsi/Persian
Finnish
French
German
Italian
Spanish
Age Range:
7-17
Measure Type:
Screening
Measure Format:
Questionnaire
Average Time to Complete (min):
5
Reporter Type:
Parent/Caregiver
Average Time to Score (min):
1
Periodicity:
past 7 days
Response Format:
3-point rating: 0=not true or rarely true; 1=somewhat or sometimes true, 2=very true or often true
Materials Needed:
Paper/Pencil
Sample Item(s):
| Domains | Scale | Sample Items |
| Posttraumatic stress symptoms (child) | Difficulty concentrating | |
| Anxious | ||
| Stomach aches |
Information Provided:
Areas of Concern/Risks
Continuous Assessment
Raw Scores
Training
Training to Interpret:
Prior Experience Psych Testing/Interpretation
Parallel/Alternate Forms
Parallel Form:
No
Alternate Form:
No
Different Age Forms:
No
Altered Version Forms:
No
Describe Alternative Forms:
Although there is a Child Report of Post-traumatic
Symptoms (CROPS), which is also reviewed in this
database, the PROPS has more items, and the items
on the two checklists were derived from slightly
different places, and thus are somewhat different. The
author reports that “the CROPS and PROPS are not
altered versions of one another. They are related by
name, author, and coverage of items from the same
item pool. . .However, they’re entirely different forms,
with different histories, different items, and different
formats. Another critical difference is that the CROPS
focuses on thoughts and feelings (internal processes)
whereas the PROPS focuses on observable behaviors
(externals); there is some item overlap but many more
items. .are not repeated from one instrument to the
other.”
Psychometrics
Clinical Cutoffs:
Yes
If Yes, Specify Cutoffs:
Cutoff Score of 16 indicates cause for clinical concern.
Reliability:
| Type: | Rating | Statistics | Min | Max | Avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test-Retest-# days: 42 | Acceptable | Pearson's R | 0.79 | ||
| Internal Consistency | Acceptable | Coefficient Alpha | 0.87 | 0.93 | 0.91 |
| Inter-rater | |||||
| Parallel/Alternate Forms | Acceptable | Pearson's R | 0.34 | 0.6 | 0.44 |
References for Reliability:
Data are from Greenwald & Rubin, 1999 and Greenwald et al. (2000).
Internal consistency: Range .87 - .93 across four studies.
Parallel: correlation between the CROPS and the PROPS across three studies.
Correlation is consistent with what has been found in the literature regarding correlations
between parent and child measures.
References for Content Validity:
Data are from Greenwald & Rubin, 1999 and Greenwald et al. (2000).
Internal consistency: Range .87 - .93 across four studies.
Parallel: correlation between the CROPS and the PROPS across three studies.
Correlation is consistent with what has been found in the literature regarding correlations
between parent and child measures.
Construct Validity:
| Validity Type | Not known | Not found | Nonclincal Samples | Clinical Samples | Diverse Samples |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Convergent/Concurrent | Yes | ||||
| Discriminant | Yes | ||||
| Sensitive to Change | Yes | ||||
| Intervention Effects | Yes | ||||
| Longitudinal/Maturation Effects | Yes | ||||
| Sensitive to Theoretically Distinct Groups | Yes | ||||
| Factorial Validity | Yes |
References for Construct Validity:
PROPS scores were found to correlate with a measure of the degree of trauma
a child had experienced.
An exploratory principal components factor analysis with an oblique rotation
suggested a three factor structure, based on the scree test. The first factor
contained predominantly internalizing symptoms (e.g. anxiety, fear), the second
contained predominantly externalizing symptoms (e.g. antisocial behaviors,
interpersonal difficulties), and the third factor contained primarily somatic and
sleep problems. A second-order factor analysis suggested that each scale could
be conceptualized within the single overarching construct of post-traumatic
symptoms.
In a study of 15 sexually abused Iranian girls randomly assigned to CBT or
EMDR treatment, the PROPS showed evidence of sensitivity to intervention
effects, with pre to posttest comparisons showing significant improvement for
both the EMDR and CBT groups (Jaberghaderi, Greenwald, Rubin, Zand, &
Dolatabadi, 2004).
The PROPS and CROPS were also used in a randomized trial of 29 boys with
conduct problems. Boys were randomly assigned to standard care (residential
or day treatment) or standard care plus 3 trauma-focused EMDR sessions. No
significant treatment differences were found with the CROPS or PROPS. Both
groups decreased on the Impact of Events Scale, 8-item version (IES-8), with a
trend favoring the treatment group. The authors suggested the difference in
findings between the IES-8 and CROPS/PROPS may be because the IES-8
focused on a specific traumatic memory, which was the target of treatment,
whereas the CROPS and PROPS are more broad-spectrum trauma measures
(Soberman, Greenwald, & Rule, 2002).
In a study examining the effects of indirect exposure to the 9-11 attacks (Saylor,
Cowart, Lipovsky, Jackson, & Finch (2003). PROPS scores were related to
exposure to negative media images (r=.20, p<.008) and positive media images
(r=.23, p<.002).
Criterion Validity:
| Not Known | Not Found | Nonclinical Samples | Clinical Samples | Diverse Samples | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictive Validity: | |||||
| Postdictive Validity: |
Overall Psychometric Limitations:
* Information regarding psychometrics can be found on the author’s website at
http://www.childtrauma.com (click on assessment)
*Greenwald & Rubin (1999) report cut scores based on comparisons of a scale rating the
degree of trauma a child experienced (1=no significant trauma or loss; 2=possibility of some
significant trauma or loss; 3=significant trauma or loss likely to have occurred, and
4=significant trauma or loss definitely occurred).
*Psychometrics from the Greenwald & Rubin (1999) studies are based on a community
sample of volunteers, with a response rate of 20% in urban schools and 23% in rural schools.
*Psychometrics have not been fully established with trauma populations. While a study used
the CROPS with 51 kids in post-disaster treatment in a CMHC in the Netherlands, this study
did not establish the reliability of the measure with this population. It did demonstrate some
validity data, but not enough to indicate in the review that the CROPS has established
validity and reliability within this trauma population. (deRoos, Greenwald, de Jongh, &
Noorthoorn 2004).
* The majority of studies involving the CROPS and PROPS have involved school samples.
While many of these samples have been conducted in other countries and have
demonstrated evidence for the reliability and validity of the measure in German, Bosnian,
and Scottish samples, more research is needed examining the use of the measure with
diverse ethnic groups in the United States, with clinic populations, and with specific trauma
groups.
* The Greenwald & Rubin (1999) study reports on the validity of a 30-item PROPS. The
latest version has 32-items. While the change in the measure most likely represents an
improvement, research is needed examining the psychometrics of the most recent version of
the PROPS.
Translation Quality
Language(s) Other Than English:
| Language: | Translated | Back Translated | Reliable | Good Psychometrics | Similar Factor Structure | Norms Available | Measure Developed for this Group |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Spanish | Yes | Yes | Unk | Unk | Unk | Unk | Unk |
| 2. German | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unk |
| 3. Bosnian | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unk |
| 4. Persian | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unk | Unk | Unk | Unk |
| 5. Dutch | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unk | Unk | Unk |
| 6. Italian | Yes | Unk | Unk | Unk | Unk | Unk | Unk |
| 7. Finnish | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unk | Yes | Unk | Unk |
Population Information
Population Used For Measure Development:
A volunteer community sample of 54 rural and 152 urban school children in grades 4-8,
and their parents. The response rate was 20% for the urban schools and 23% for the rural
schools. Median age of children was 11.5, with a range from 8 to 15. 49% were male; 51%
female. Of the 88% who indicated ethnic status, 53% were African American, 23%
Hispanic, 17% Caucasian, and 7% Other. Of the 77 parents who indicated educational
status, 17% did not graduate high school, 54% went no further than high school, 38%
attended college or a trade school but did not graduate, and 17% graduated college.
Measure has demonstrated evidence of reliability and validity in which populations?:
Sexual Abuse
Use with Diverse Populations:
| Population Type: | Measure Used with Members of this Group | Members of this Group Studied in Peer-Reviewed Journals | Reliable | Good Psychometrics | Norms Available | Measure Developed for this Group |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Lower Socio-economic status | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
| 2. Rural populations | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
| 3. Variety of ethnic/cultural groups | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Pros & Cons/References
Pros:
1) Measure is short
2) Clear simple language for reliability and ease of use with young, low IQ, and/or undereducated
respondents.
3) Assesses broad range of post-traumatic symptoms beyond PTSD symptoms.
4) Measure has been shown to have good internal consistency in samples outside the U.S.
5) After the initial purchase, the measure is free.
6) As the author reports, “the instrument appears to be equally sensitive to PTSD
symptoms of both genders. This is important because in many other PTSD studies, the
girls look worse than the boys; that may be an artifact of the instrumentation.”
Cons:
1) Measure is not yet standardized (no norms)
2) More research is needed examining the use of the measure with clinical samples.
3) The majority of studies have not yet been published or subjected to full peer review, so
there is little published validity data on the PROPS.
4) While the measure has been translated into a number of different languages, caution
should be used in interpreting the measures given that psychometrics are not fully
explored with the different language versions. Some versions, such as the German and
Bosnian versions have much more research that others (e.g. Spanish).
References:
A PsychInfo literature search and correspondance with the author revealed the measure
has been referenced in 3 peer reviewed journal articles.
1) Greenwald, R., & Rubin, A. (1999). Brief assessment of children's post-traumatic
symptoms: Development and preliminary validation of parent and child scales. Research on
Social Work Practice, 9, 61-75.
2) Jaberghaderi, N., Greenwald, R., Rubin, A., Zand, S.O., & Dolatabadi, S. (2004). A
comparison of CBT and EMDR for sexually abused Iranian girls. Clinical Psychology and
Psychotherapy, 11, 358-368.
3) Saylor, C.F., Cowart, B.L., Lipovsky, J.A., Jackson, C., Finch, A.J. (X). Media exposure to
September 11: Elementary school students’ Experiences and posttraumatic symptoms.
American Behavioral Scientist, 46(12), 1622-1642.
4) Soberman, G.B., Greenwald, R., & Rule, D.L. (2002). A controlled study of eye
movement desensitization and repreocessing (EMDR) for boys with conduct problems.
Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 6, 217-236.
Editor of Review:
Chandra Ghosh Ippen, Ph.D. & Madhur Kulkarni, M.S.
Last Updated:
Mon, 07/11/2005
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Stay Connected
