Adverse Childhood Experience International Questionnaire (World Health Organization, 2012)
- Populations: Early and Middle adolescents
- Age ranges: 10-16
- Languages: chiChichewa
- Countries: Malawi
Items
Examples
- Emotional Neglect
- Emotional Abuse
- Physical Neglect
- Physical Abuse
- Sexual Abuse
- Substance Abuser in Household
- Someone with mental health issues
- Domestic Violence
- Parents dead or divorced
- Bullied
- Community violence
- Collective violence
Scoring
The ACE-IQ has two options for coding:
binary or frequency (World HealthOrganization, 2012b).
“For the binary coding, the final score refers to the sum of each type reported, independent of frequency.”
“For the frequency coding, the final scores consist of the sum of the types which occurred at a predefined frequency, as specified in the Guidance for Analyzing ACE-IQ (World Health Organization, 2016). This second coding scheme is meant to discriminate between more and less severe forms of adversity.”
Binary version ranged 0-12
(Kidman et al., 2019)
Citations
- World Health Organization (2012a). Addressing adverse childhood experiences to improve public health: Expert consultation. Retrieved from https://aceresponse.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-World-Health-Organization-WHO-Meeting-Report-Addressing-Adverse-Childhood-Experiences-to-Improve-Public-Health.pdf
- World Health Organization (2012b). Adverse childhood experiences international questionnaire (ACE-IQ) – Rationale for ACE-IQ. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/adverse-childhood-experiences-international-questionnaire-(ace-iq)
- Kidman, R., Smith, D., Piccolo, L. R., & Kohler, H. (2019). Psychometric evaluation of the adverse childhood experience international questionnaire (ACE-IQ) in Malawian adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 92, 139-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.03.015
Scoring breakdown
Measure development
- Significant design input from young people
- Cognitive interviews with young people
- Expert input
Validity
- Unknown: Face validity
- Green: Convergent validity
- Unknown: Construct validity
Reliability
- Unknown: Internal consistency
- Unknown: Test-retest
Ease of use
- Unknown: Readability
Definitions
Face validity: How well a measure appears to represent the construct it is supposed to be measuring.
Convergent validity: How well a measure correlates with other hypothetically-related measures.
Construct validity: The extent to which a measure reflects the construct it was designed to evaluate.
Internal consistency: The extent to which items in a scale capture aspects of the same construct.
Test-retest: The degree to which measurement scores are consistent over a short period of time (usually 2 weeks).
Readability: The ease with which a reader can understand the questionnaire items.
Key
- Green: Meets validation criteria
- Red: Does not meet validation criteria
- Unknown: Evidence not available
