Evaluation of LiNES: A New Measure of Trauma, Negative Affect, and Relationship Insecurity Over the Life Span in Persons With FND
Publication: The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences
Abstract
Objective:
The authors evaluated potential predisposing vulnerabilities and perpetuating factors among individuals with functional neurological disorder (FND) by using the novel Lifespan Negative Experiences Scale (LiNES), which assesses retrospective self-report of interpersonal trauma, negative affect, and relationship insecurity at three developmental stages: childhood, adolescence, and adulthood.
Methods:
The LiNES, Childhood Abuse and Trauma Scale (CATS), Relationship Scales Questionnaire (RSQ), and Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) were administered to 71 individuals with FND. The reliability and validity of LiNES were examined by correlation with the other measures. FND patients’ responses on LiNES were compared with those of 170 healthy control subjects.
Results:
LiNES scores in the FND group were internally consistent and correlated highly with CATS, RSQ, and PANAS scores. At each developmental stage, LiNES trauma scores were higher among patients with FND, compared with control subjects. The FND subgroup, which comprised patients who also had nonepileptic attack disorder, had higher trauma scores, compared with the FND-only subgroup. Compared with control subjects, patients with FND reported greater negative affect and relationship insecurity in adulthood. Lifetime LiNES scores for interpersonal trauma and relationship insecurity predicted FND group classification with >80% accuracy.
Conclusions:
This study provides further support for the links between FND and trauma, negative affect, and insecure attachment. Recognition of these factors is likely to be important for treatment and stratification of important subpopulations in research. These findings provide new insights into the association between the timing of negative experiences and their effect, with LiNES emerging as a potentially useful measure for patients presenting with FND.
Despite a recent acceleration of research (1), functional neurological disorder (FND) is still poorly understood by health professionals as well as the pubic (2). The fact that the need for identification of a precipitating stressor has been dropped from DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for FND (3) does not mean that psychosocial factors, including negative life experiences of trauma, negative affect, and relationship insecurity, do not play important roles (4–6). Indeed, evidence for a causal relationship between FND and negative life experiences, such as childhood neglect or trauma, is not only based on correlational or association studies but also emerges from prospective longitudinal research (6–10).
In view of this evidence—and the likely relevance of these factors, if present, for therapeutic formulation or patient stratification in research—a standardized measurement approach could be of great importance clinically and in research studies. Unfortunately, existing measures of trauma tend to be intrusive and time-consuming. For example, the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (11), a 25-item measure, and the Life Events and Difficulties Schedule (12), a semistructured interview that can take 2–4 hours to complete, have been used for individuals with FND (13, 14). Both measures are so detailed and intrusive that they may cause distress to patients or research participants. In addition, to our knowledge, no combined measures of trauma, negative affect, and relationship insecurity exist that have been validated in this patient population. Moreover, existing measures fail to differentiate between developmental phases during the respondent’s life span, although developmental vulnerabilities vary in different life phases (15, 16).
To address this gap, we developed a novel short questionnaire: the Lifespan Negative Experiences Scale (LiNES) (17). LiNES asks adults to retrospectively rate their experiences of interpersonal trauma, negative affect, and relationship insecurity during three life phases: childhood, adolescence, and adulthood (17). In a nonclinical population, LiNES scores at each developmental stage were found to reliably predict reports of both physical symptoms and difficulties with emotional processing in adulthood (17). A key strength of LiNES is that it has been designed to be minimally invasive in terms of the number and nature of the questions it asks. For example, the Childhood Abuse and Trauma Scale (CATS) (18), an established trauma measure, consists of 38 items and asks questions about experiences of abuse in more detail than necessary or appropriate for a screening or stratification tool. Moreover, CATS focuses only on traumatic experiences in childhood, and like most established questionnaires, it measures trauma by focusing on objective events (e.g., number of experiences or perpetrators), rather than on their subjective effects, although there is little evidence that information about objective events is relevant to the occurrence of posttraumatic symptoms (19).
LiNES has been designed for use in clinical settings, but it was validated in a nonclinical sample (17). The study reported here was intended to examine whether LiNES could be useful for the identification of predisposing, precipitating, and perpetuating factors in patient populations. Consequently, we compared data from patients with FND with data from healthy persons in a control group. Furthermore, we explored the construct validity of the LiNES by studying correlations with previously validated measures of related domains, such as childhood abuse and trauma, positive and negative affect, physical symptoms, and the quality of interpersonal relationships.
Methods
Participants
Patient participants were recruited via e-mail through online forums for persons with nonepileptic attack disorder (NEAD) or FND. As detailed below, the final patient sample included individuals with FND only, with FND and NEAD, and with NEAD only. Healthy control subjects were recruited via e-mail through a volunteer database (for current students at the University of Sheffield and alumni and staff). Data for participants in the control group were used previously in the original LiNES validation (17). All participants were offered the chance to enter a prize draw for a £20 voucher. To increase the number and diversity of participants in the control group, individuals were asked to share the survey link with at least one person who was not affiliated with the University of Sheffield. Ethical approval was granted by the University of Sheffield Psychology Department Ethics Committee.
Procedure
This study was conducted using the Qualtrics online survey software (Qualtrics, 2015).
Measures
Participants’ demographic characteristics.
Participants provided information on their date of birth, gender, country of birth, and race/ethnicity. Participants were also prompted to report any relevant diagnoses (mental health conditions, neurodevelopmental differences, seizures, or medically unexplained symptoms) and who their primary childhood caregivers were. Respondents used the SES Ladder (20) to rate their socioeconomic status at two life stages, once for the family in which they grew up and once for their current circumstances. Respondents in the NEAD-FND group (referred to hereafter as the FND sample) were asked about employment status, diagnosis, symptoms, and treatment history.
LiNES.
LiNES consists of 13 items grouped into three subscales: interpersonal trauma (four items), negative affect (five items), and relationship insecurity (four items). Each item is rated on a 7-point scale (0, not at all, to 6, a lot) (for further details, see the online supplement ). Respondents must rate all 13 items three times, thinking about their childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Scores are calculated for each subscale at each developmental stage by calculating an average across the items within that subscale at each stage. For this study, subscale scores were calculated without replacing any missing data as long as no more than one item per subscale was missing. Scores were not calculated if more than one item per subscale was missing.
Construct validation measures.
Three previously validated measures were chosen to support the convergent validity of each of the three LiNES subscales in the FND sample.
Early life trauma was measured by the 38-item CATS (18), which has good psychometric properties (overall Cronbach’s α=0.90) (18, 21). Each item is rated on a scale from 0, never, to 4, always. The original publication describes three subscales: sexual abuse, punishment, and neglect–negative home atmosphere. An additional emotional abuse subscale was created and validated by using items not included in the original three subscales (21). A total CATS score was also calculated (mean of the responses to the 38 questions).
Affect during the previous week was measured by using the 20-item Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) (22), which has good psychometric properties (negative affect and positive affect subscales: Cronbach’s α=0.85 and 0.89, respectively).
The 30-item Relationship Scales Questionnaire (RSQ) was used to measure previous attachment and experiences in relationships (23). Similar to LiNES, it does not ask about any particular relationship (e.g., with parents or romantic partners). The RSQ yields two attachment dimensions (anxiety and avoidance), with good psychometric properties (anxiety: Cronbach’s α=0.83; avoidance: Cronbach’s α=0.77) (24).
Physical symptom measure.
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed by using SPSS, version 25. The alpha level was set at a p value of 0.05. Tests used were two-tailed. The risk of false-negative findings was reduced by the Benjamini-Holm procedure. Histogram plots of LiNES, PANAS, CATS, RSQ, and SDQ scores indicated that the majority of scores were not normally distributed. Hence, nonparametric analyses were conducted. Internal reliability of LiNES subscales was examined by calculating Cronbach’s alpha.
To explore changes in interpersonal trauma, negative affect, and relationship insecurity across the three developmental stages in the FND and control groups, each subscale score was compared across all developmental stages. Spearman’s correlation coefficient scores between childhood and adolescence, childhood and adulthood, and adolescence and adulthood were highly significant for FND patients and control subjects and for each subscale (p<0.001) (for further details, see Table S5 in the online supplement ). However, t tests (Wilcoxon signed-ranks test) and effect sizes suggested that some subscale scores differed significantly at different developmental stages. Where these were significant, effect sizes were calculated.
Whether LiNES subscales could predict the likelihood that participants had FND was tested by stepwise (forward) binomial logistic regression based on average lifetime scores for all three LiNES subscales: interpersonal trauma, negative affect, and relationship insecurity. Included in the model were age, childhood socioeconomic status, and gender as independent variables. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to calculate discrimination accuracy of the model.
To explore whether different presentations of functional disorders in our final patient sample are associated with different predisposing factors (27), we compared findings among individuals with FND only, with FND and NEAD, and with NEAD only by using t tests (Mann-Whitney).
Results
Participants
Demographic data for the study participants are presented in Table 1. For the FND sample, of 104 people who opened the survey link, 71 (62 females) completed the sections pertaining to demographic information and all items of the LiNES (68% completion rate), suggesting that most found the measure acceptable. For the healthy control sample, of 373 people who opened the survey link, 271 (194 females) completed demographic information and all items of the LiNES (73% completion rate); 37% of these were excluded, because they reported having a diagnosis of at least one disorder. Therefore, the healthy control sample included in this study consisted of 170 individuals (109 females).
| FND group (N=71) | Control group (N=170) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | N | Range | N | Range | p |
| Age (years; median and range) | 45.0 | 18–73 | 23.5 | 18–67 | <0.001a |
| Gender | <0.001b | ||||
| Female | 62 | — | 109 | — | |
| Male | 8 | — | 61 | — | |
| Other | 1 | — | — | — | |
| Race/ethnicity | |||||
| White | 70 | — | 150 | — | |
| Mixed-multiple | 1 | — | 7 | — | |
| Asian or Asian British | 0 | — | 8 | — | |
| Black or African Caribbean | 0 | — | 3 | — | |
| Other | 0 | — | 2 | — | |
| Country of birth | |||||
| United Kingdom | 67 | — | 147 | — | |
| United States | 3 | — | 5 | — | |
| Other | 1 | — | 18 | — | |
| Socioeconomic status (median and range)c | |||||
| Childhood | 5 | 1–10 | 6 | 2–10 | 0.008a |
| Current | 5 | 1–10 | 6 | 2–10 | <0.001a |
a
The data represent between-groups t test.
b
The data represent chi-square test of association.
c
Socioeconomic status was measured with the SES Ladder; possible scores range from 1 to 10, with higher scores indicating higher socioeconomic status.
Participants were matched for race-ethnicity and country of origin. However, the healthy control sample had a lower median age, compared with the FND sample, and included a larger proportion of male participants. In addition, patients with FND reported a significantly lower socioeconomic status, both currently and during childhood, compared with control subjects. Most participants in the FND group (59%) reported their employment status as on leave or out of work due to illness. When asked about educational status, 36% of the FND sample had obtained vocational qualifications. No employment or educational data were available for the healthy control group.
Clinical Symptoms in the FND Group
Of the 71 patient participants, most (N=36, 50.7%) self-reported a diagnosis of FND only, eight (11.3%) reported a diagnosis of NEAD only, and 27 (38%) reported both diagnoses. The 71 patient participants reported high levels of comorbid conditions. The six most commonly self-reported diagnoses in this group were anxiety (N=41, 57.7%), depression (N=40, 56.3%), chronic pain/chronic fatigue/irritable bowel syndrome (N=37, 52.1%), posttraumatic stress disorder (N=11, 15.5%), epilepsy (N=8, 11.3%), and other mental health problems (N=9, 12.7%). Almost all patient participants (N=65, 91.5%) were taking some form of medication (median=3 mediations; range=0–18), and 47 (66.2%) stated that they had received some form of psychological treatment. In the patient sample, seizures were the most commonly reported disabling symptom (N=24, 33.8%), followed by paralysis (N=10, 14.1%), tremor (N=5, 7%), and weakness (N=3, 4.2%).
Self-Reported Measures Among FND Patients and Control Subjects
FND participants reported higher levels of negative affect and lower levels of positive affect, compared with control subjects, as well as higher levels of trauma and avoidant and anxious relationship styles. Furthermore, FND participants scored significantly higher on the SDQ, compared with subjects (for further details, see Table S1 in the online supplement ).
LiNES
Internal consistency.
Internal consistency was acceptable to very good in the FND group (Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from 0.78 to 0.96). In the control group, internal consistency ranged from 0.52 to 0.86. Notably, with the exception of the interpersonal trauma subscale in the control group, internal reliability was acceptable for all three subscales. The internal consistency of the trauma subscale in the control group may have been low because of low or absent levels of trauma in many respondents. (Cronbach’s alpha values are presented in Table S2 in the online supplement ).
LiNES scores for FND patients and control subjects.
FND participants reported higher levels of interpersonal trauma, negative affect, and relationship insecurity at all three stages of development, compared with control subjects (Figure 1) (see also Table S3 in the online supplement ). Notably, although the between-group differences in trauma scores (FND versus control) were significant, with higher scores for FND participants than for control subjects, the within-group differences in trauma scores between each developmental stage were not significant (Friedman test) in either the FND or control group (FND group, χ2=1.68, df=2, p=0.432; control group, χ2=0.084, df=2, p=0.656). In contrast, for both negative affect and relationship insecurity, significant within-group differences were noted (Friedman test) in both the FND and control groups in scores across the three developmental periods (negative affect: FND group, χ2=30.37, df=2, p<0.001; control group, χ2=100.13, df=2, p<0.001; relationship insecurity: FND group, χ2=16.30, df=2, p<0.001; control group, χ2=35.38, df=2, p<0.001).
FIGURE 1. Scores at three developmental stages on three subscales of the Lifespan Negative Experiences Scale, by study groupa
a Data for the functional neurologic disorder (FND) group (N=71) and healthy control group (N=170) are shown. Higher scores indicate greater trauma, negative affect, and relationship insecurity. Error bars indicate standard deviations of the mean.
Of the 71 patients in the FND sample, 36 reported FND only (four males, 31 females, and one other; mean age=44.89 years [SD=11.43]), 35 reported either FND including NEAD or NEAD only (four males and 31 females; mean age=42.6 years [SD=12.010]). For those who reported NEAD (either with FND or NEAD only), levels of interpersonal trauma during childhood and adolescence were significantly higher, compared with patients with FND only; the difference during adulthood approached significance (p=0.051). Differences in other LiNES subscales between these patient subgroups were not significant after correcting for multiple comparisons (see Table S4 in the online supplement ).
LiNES: consistency of experiences across the life span.
Changes in experiences of trauma, negative affect, and relationship insecurity across the three developmental stages in the FND and control groups are presented in Tables S5A and 5B in the online supplement . For interpersonal trauma, the Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests did not identify any significant differences between the scores for three developmental stages for either the FND group or the control group. Of interest, among both FND patients and control subjects, we found an increase in negative affect and relationship insecurity during the adolescent period. It is noteworthy that negative affect continued to increase into adulthood only among FND participants. For relationship insecurity, after showing an increase from childhood to adolescence among both patients with FND and control subjects, a significant reduction in this domain at the transition into adulthood was observed only among the control subjects (Figure 1).
Construct validity.
The LiNES subscale scores in the FND sample were expected to correlate with existing, validated measures of interpersonal trauma (CATS), negative affect (PANAS), and relationship insecurity (RSQ). Significant Spearman’s correlation coefficients were identified for each of the LiNES subscales, CATS total and subscales, PANAS subscales, and the RSQ anxious style subscale but not the RSQ avoidance style subscale (see Table S6 in the online supplement ).
Prediction of FND diagnosis based on lifetime LiNES interpersonal trauma.
Binomial logistic regression based on average lifetime scores of all three LiNES subscales was run; included in the model were age, childhood SES status, and gender as independent variables. The assumption of linearity of the continuous variables in our model (age, socioeconomic status, and LiNES subscale scores) with respect to the logit of the dependent variable as assessed via the Box-Tidwell procedure was met. A Bonferroni correction was applied using all 12 terms in the model, resulting in statistical significance being accepted at p<0.004. On the basis of this assessment, all continuous independent variables were found to be linearly related to the logit of the dependent variable. In addition, five standardized residuals with values of –2.69, 2.79, 3.20, 3.08, and 3.82 were found, which were kept in the analysis
Explanatory variables that were retained in the final model were LiNES interpersonal trauma, LiNES relationship insecurity, age, and gender (χ2=129.63, df=4, p<0.0001) (Table 2). Thus higher levels of trauma and relationship insecurity were associated with a greater likelihood of having FND. Compared with females, males had lower odds (odds ratio=0.23) of having FND, and greater age was associated with an increased likelihood of having FND. Socioeconomic status and LiNES negative affect did not contribute to the model. This final model explained 59.5% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variance in FND and correctly classified 82.9% of cases. Sensitivity was 60.0%, specificity was 92.4%, positive predictive value was 73.4%, and negative predictive value was 84.9%. The area under the ROC curve was 0.912 (95% confidence interval=0.876–0.948), an outstanding level of discrimination (28).
| Model and variable | βb | SE | Waldc | df | p | Odds ratio | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | |||||||
| LiNES interpersonal trauma subscale score | 1.93 | 0.32 | 36.66 | 1 | <0.001 | 6.90 | 3.69–12.89 |
| 2 | |||||||
| Age (years) | 0.07 | 0.01 | 30.21 | 1 | <0.001 | 1.07 | 1.04–1.10 |
| LiNES interpersonal trauma subscale score | 1.85 | –0.34 | 29.23 | 1 | <0.001 | 6.37 | 3.26–12.46 |
| 3 | |||||||
| Age (years) | 0.08 | 0.01 | 30.71 | 1 | <0.001 | 1.08 | 1.05–1.11 |
| Genderd | –1.56 | 0.53 | 8.70 | 1 | 0.003 | 0.21 | 0.07–0.59 |
| LiNES interpersonal trauma subscale score | 1.84 | 0.36 | 25.98 | 1 | <0.001 | 6.32 | 3.11–12.86 |
| 4 | |||||||
| Age (years) | 0.08 | 0.01 | 29.51 | 1 | 0.007 | 1.08 | 0.08–0.68 |
| Gender | –1.45 | 0.54 | 7.21 | 1 | 0.007 | 0.23 | 0.08–0.68 |
| LiNES interpersonal trauma subscale score | 2.61 | 0.55 | 22.29 | 1 | <0.001 | 13.59 | 4.60–40.18 |
| LiNES relationship insecurity subscale score | –0.57 | –0.27 | 4.42 | 1 | 0.036 | 0.57 | 0.33–0.96 |
a
LiNES=Lifetime of Negative Experiences Scale.
b
The data represent the probability of FND occurring.
c
Wald test was used to determine statistical significance for each independent variable.
d
Gender indicates males compared with females.
Discussion
Using the new LiNES, we assessed self-reported experiences of interpersonal trauma, negative affect, and relationship insecurity at three developmental stages—childhood, adolescence, and adulthood—among patients with FND. We found that the LiNES is an internally consistent and reliable questionnaire with good construct validity. The interpersonal trauma, negative affect, and relationship insecurity LiNES subscales correlated highly with more detailed older measures of trauma, affect, and attachment. Lifetime scores on the LiNES interpersonal trauma and relationship insecurity subscales, but not on the negative affect subscale, reliably predicted FND status.
By using LiNES, we found that individuals with FND had higher levels of interpersonal trauma, negative affect, and relationship insecurity at all three developmental stages, compared with healthy control subjects. Cronbach’s alpha exhibited good internal consistency of the LiNES among patients with FND. Moreover, the LiNES correlated highly with previously validated measures of the three constructs, although with just 13 items completed once for each developmental stage, it is much shorter and likely to be more acceptable than the more established measures. Our findings of higher levels of interpersonal trauma are consistent with those of other studies, which have revealed high levels of trauma in the early life and adulthood of patients with FND (6, 29).
The strength of LiNES is its ability to measure negative experiences longitudinally. This revealed important differences in changes in such experiences among individuals with FND, compared with control subjects. We found that negative affect and relationship insecurity increased significantly during adolescence for both FND patients and control subjects. Indeed, the life changes that occur during adolescence are often associated with an increase in the experience of emotional and interpersonal turmoil (30). However, only among patients with FND did the negative affect increase further during adulthood.
The high levels of negative affect reported by FND participants in this study are consistent with the idea that functional symptoms are physical manifestations resulting from emotional distress (29, 31). Negative affect is thought to be a risk factor and has been found to be associated with functional symptoms (32). Likewise, an insecure attachment style, which was also high in the FND group, has been found to be associated with functional symptoms (33, 34) and could influence a person’s help-seeking behaviors. For example, having an insecure, anxious attachment style could make an individual more likely to experience distress and to report common physical symptoms (35). In support of this, we found a positive association between the SDQ score and the LiNES relationship insecurity subscale score among FND patients.
The temporal changes across the life span in negative affect and relationship insecurity among the FND and control groups contrasted with steadily elevated levels of interpersonal trauma across the life span. Likewise, we found little lifetime variation in the low levels of trauma among control subjects. Much work has been done on the association between trauma history and FND (6). Consistent with a recent review (6), our study found that patients with FND had higher levels of trauma, compared with control subjects, during childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Moreover, our analyses demonstrated that the LiNES lifetime interpersonal trauma and relationship insecurity scores could be used to reliability predict FND status, providing an initial indication of the potential clinical validity of the LiNES and further evidence of an etiological link, at a group level, between trauma and FND. Consistent with the idea that differences in traumatic experiences may shape functional symptoms (27), the results of our analysis comparing FND-only patients with patients reporting both NEAD and FND indicated that those in the NEAD subgroup reported significantly higher levels of interpersonal trauma during childhood and adolescence, with higher levels in adulthood approaching significance.
It is noteworthy that our findings need to be viewed in light of this study’s limitations. First, patients in the FND group were recruited through Internet forums for patients with this diagnostic label or one of NEAD. They were asked to self-certify that they were diagnosed as having one of these disorders, and the diagnoses were not medically confirmed. Therefore, we cannot be certain that all would have met the DSM-5 criteria for FND. It is possible that some patients may have received a diagnosis of FND or NEAD from a nonspecialist without appropriate assessment. However, it is unlikely that a substantial number of participants wrongly self-reported that they had FND or NEAD. We note that the demographic and psychopathological profile indicated by patients’ responses to previously validated self-report measures matches the profile described in previous studies of FND. Furthermore, the diagnostic uncertainty related to our recruitment procedure has to be weighed against the fact that we may have captured data from a group of patients who were less acutely unwell, compared with those whom we might have recruited from a specialist clinic. On the other hand, it is possible that patients frequenting FND Internet forums and willing to take part in research studies represent a particular subset of FND patients with higher rates of psychopathology or trauma history than other patients with FND.
Next, the participant groups were not matched with regard to gender, age, and socioeconomic status. This is an issue because there are gender differences in the types of trauma men and women are exposed to or are likely to report (36), and trauma is more prevalent among deprived populations (37). However, we tried to address this by taking into account age, socioeconomic status, and gender in our logistic regression analysis. Furthermore, LiNES is based on retrospective recall. The additional validated measures used in this study provided some reassurance about the reliability of retrospective reports. However, it is possible that the perception of childhood trauma was related to recall bias associated with adulthood trauma (that is, instead of childhood trauma setting individuals up to also experience trauma in adolescence and adulthood). Finally, we acknowledge that our results are correlational, and more work is needed to examine the causal relationships between trauma, negative affect, and relationship insecurity and FND.
Conclusions
Although psychological factors may not be necessary in the development of FND, they are likely to play an important pathophysiological role in a large proportion of patients, and their recognition is important for treatment. Our findings suggest that LiNES could be helpful in clinical settings where functional symptoms are common. Although this tool is not designed as a diagnostic test for FND, it could be useful for screening for potentially relevant predisposing, precipitating, or perpetuating factors, and it could thereby inform treatment formulations. LiNES could also be used in research—for instance, for stratification of samples on the basis of different developmental backgrounds.
Supplementary Material
File (appi.neuropsych.19050121.ds001.pdf)
- View/Download
- 253.09 KB
References
1.
Carson AJ, Brown R, David AS, et al: UK-FNS: Functional (conversion) neurological symptoms: research since the millennium. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2012; 83:842–850
2.
Worsley C, Whitehead K, Kandler R, et al: Illness perceptions of health care workers in relation to epileptic and psychogenic nonepileptic seizures. Epilepsy Behav 2011; 20:668–673
3.
American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 2013
4.
Brown RJ, Reuber M: Towards an integrative theory of psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (PNES). Clin Psychol Rev 2016; 47:55–70
5.
Carson A, Ludwig L, Welch K: Psychologic theories in functional neurologic disorders. Handb Clin Neurol 2016; 139:105–120
6.
Ludwig L, Pasman JA, Nicholson T, et al: Stressful life events and maltreatment in conversion (functional neurological) disorder: systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies. Lancet Psychiatry 2018; 5:307–320
7.
Reuber M: Trauma, traumatisation, and functional neurological symptom disorder-what are the links? Lancet Psychiatry 2018; 5:288–289
8.
van Tilburg MAL, Runyan DK, Zolotor AJ, et al: Unexplained gastrointestinal symptoms after abuse in a prospective study of children at risk for abuse and neglect. Ann Fam Med 2010; 8:134–140
9.
Dutra L, Bureau JF, Holmes B, et al: Quality of early care and childhood trauma: a prospective study of developmental pathways to dissociation. J Nerv Ment Dis 2009; 197:383–390
10.
Stein MB, Lang AJ, Laffaye C, et al: Relationship of sexual assault history to somatic symptoms and health anxiety in women. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2004; 26:178–183
11.
Bernstein DP, Fink L, Handelsman L, et al: Initial reliability and validity of a new retrospective measure of child abuse and neglect. Am J Psychiatry 1994; 151:1132–1136
12.
Brown GW, Harris T: The Social Origins of Depression: A Study of Psychiatric Disorder in Women. London, Tavistock, 1978
13.
Nicholson TR, Aybek S, Craig T, et al: Life events and escape in conversion disorder. Psychol Med 2016; 46:2617–2626
14.
Perez DL, Matin N, Barsky A, et al: Cingulo-insular structural alterations associated with psychogenic symptoms, childhood abuse and PTSD in functional neurological disorders. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2017; 88:491–497
15.
Dunn EC, Nishimi K, Gomez SH, et al: Developmental timing of trauma exposure and emotion dysregulation in adulthood: are there sensitive periods when trauma is most harmful? J Affect Disord 2018; 227:869–877
16.
Gee DG, Casey BJ: The impact of developmental timing for stress and recovery. Neurobiol Stress 2015; 1:184–194
17.
Mayberry E, Reuber M, Waller G, et al: A brief new measure of trauma, relationship security, and affect across the lifespan: development and initial validation of the Lifespan Negative Experiences Scale (LiNES). PsyArXiv (Epub ahead of print August 31, 2018)
18.
Sanders B, Becker-Lausen E: The measurement of psychological maltreatment: early data on the Child Abuse and Trauma Scale. Child Abuse Negl 1995; 19:315–323
19.
Rubin DC, Feeling N: Measuring the severity of negative and traumatic events. Clin Psychol Sci 2013; 1:375–389
20.
Adler NE, Epel ES, Castellazzo G, et al: Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychol 2000; 19:586–592
21.
Kent A, Waller G: The impact of childhood emotional abuse: an extension of the Child Abuse and Trauma Scale. Child Abuse Negl 1998; 22:393–399
22.
Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A: Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol 1988; 54:1063–1070
23.
Griffin DW, Bartholomew K: Models of the self and other: fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. J Pers Soc Psychol 1994; 67:430–445
24.
Kurdek LA: On being insecure about the assessment of attachment styles. J Soc Pers Relat 2002; 19:811–834
25.
Nijenhuis E: The scoring and interpretation of the SDQ-20 and SDQ-5. Act Nerv Super 2010; 52:24–28
26.
Carson AJ, Ringbauer B, Stone J, et al: Do medically unexplained symptoms matter? a prospective cohort study of 300 new referrals to neurology outpatient clinics. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2000; 68:207–210
27.
Kanaan RAA, Duncan R, Goldstein LH, et al: Are psychogenic non-epileptic seizures just another symptom of conversion disorder? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2017; 88:425–429
28.
Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX: Applied Logistic Regression, 3rd ed. New York, Wiley, 2013
29.
Keynejad RC, Frodl T, Kanaan R, et al: Stress and functional neurological disorders: mechanistic insights. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2019; 90:813–821
30.
Casey BJ, Heller AS, Gee DG, et al: Development of the emotional brain. Neurosci Lett 2019; 693:29–34
31.
Williams IA, Levita L, Reuber M: Emotion dysregulation in patients with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures: a systematic review based on the extended process model. Epilepsy Behav 2018; 86:37–48
32.
Walsh S, Levita L, Reuber M: Comorbid depression and associated factors in PNES versus epilepsy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Seizure 2018; 60:44–56
33.
Williams B, Ospina JP, Jalilianhasanpour R, et al: Fearful attachment linked to childhood abuse, alexithymia, and depression in motor functional neurological disorders. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 2019; 31:65–69
34.
Holman N, Kirkby A, Duncan S, et al: Adult attachment style and childhood interpersonal trauma in non-epileptic attack disorder. Epilepsy Res 2008; 79:84–89
35.
Taylor RE, Marshall T, Mann A, et al: Insecure attachment and frequent attendance in primary care: a longitudinal cohort study of medically unexplained symptom presentations in ten UK general practices. Psychol Med 2012; 42:855–864
36.
Goldberg LR, Freyd JJ: Self-reports of potentially traumatic experiences in an adult community sample: gender differences and test-retest stabilities of the items in a brief betrayal-trauma survey. J Trauma Dissociation 2006; 7:39–63
37.
Nurius PS, Uehara E, Zatzick DF: Intersection of stress, social disadvantage, and life course processes: reframing trauma and mental health. Am J Psychiatr Rehabil 2013; 16:91–114
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: 30 May 2019
Revision received: 23 September 2019
Accepted: 5 October 2019
Published online: 23 December 2019
Published in print: Winter 2020
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).