Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-rxg44 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T20:20:32.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Adapting the Trauma History Questionnaire for use in a population of homeless people with severe mental illness in Tamil Nadu, India: qualitative study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2021

Andrew R. Gilmoor*
Affiliation:
Department of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Smriti Vallath
Affiliation:
Department of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Psychology, Banyan Academy of Leadership in Mental Health, India; and The Banyan, India
Ruth M. H. Peters
Affiliation:
Department of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, USA
Denise van der Ben
Affiliation:
Department of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Lauren Ng
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, USA; and Department of Psychology, University of California Los Angeles, USA
*
Correspondence: Andrew Roderick Gilmoor. Email: andrewgilmoor@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

The Trauma History Questionnaire (THQ) is one of the most widely used traumatic event inventories, but its lack of validation makes it unsuitable for the millions of homeless people with severe mental illness in India, who are particularly vulnerable to trauma exposure.

Aims

To translate and culturally adapt the THQ for use in a population of homeless people with severe mental illness in Tamil Nadu, India.

Method

We used Herdman et al's model of cultural equivalence to conduct an in-depth qualitative assessment of the cultural validity of the THQ. Following several translations, conceptual, item, semantic and operational equivalence of the THQ was assessed through four focus groups with user-survivors (n = 20) and two focus groups with mental health professionals (n = 11).

Results

Several adaptations, including the addition of 18 items about relationships, homelessness and mental illness, were necessary to improve cultural validity. Three items, such as rape, were removed for reasons of irrelevance or cultural insensitivity. Items like ‘adultery’ and ‘mental illness’ were reworded to ‘extramarital affair’ and ‘mental health problem’, respectively, to capture the cultural nuances of the Tamil language. Findings revealed a divergence in views on tool acceptability between user-survivors, who felt empowered to voice their experiences, and mental health professionals, who were concerned for patient well-being. Providing a sense of pride and autonomy, user-survivors preferred self-administration, whereas mental health professionals preferred rater administration.

Conclusions

Culture significantly affects what types of events are considered traumatic, highlighting the importance of cultural validation of instruments for use in novel populations and settings.

Information

Type
Papers
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists
Figure 0

Table 1 Study sample characteristics

Figure 1

Table 2 Description of the different categories of equivalence used in this study, as described by Herdman et al25

Figure 2

Table 3 Additional trauma domains as recommended by participants

Figure 3

Table 4 Overview of items added and removed from the Trauma History Questionnaire for item equivalence

Figure 4

Table 5 Overview of item amendment for cultural relevance

Figure 5

Table 6 Item equivalence and acceptability

Figure 6

Table 7 Semantic equivalence

Figure 7

Table 8 Operational equivalence

Supplementary material: File

Gilmoor et al. supplementary material

Gilmoor et al. supplementary material

Download Gilmoor et al. supplementary material(File)
File 4.6 MB
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.