The language that we use shapes our perceptions and our way of thinking and facing life. Therefore, language is a window to the cognitive and emotional world of individuals and communities (Pennebaker, Chung, Ireland, Gonzales, & Booth, Reference Pennebaker, Chung, Ireland, Gonzales and Booth2007). In psychology, the analysis of language is considered to be the main tool to access the patient’s subjectivity; and narrative research has studied the relationships between language use and mental experiences, with particular attention to the linguistic elements involved in identity construction (see Forgas, Vincze, & László, Reference Forgas, Vincze, László, Forgas, Vincze and László2014). Consequently, many analysis methods have been developed in order to assess a great number of linguistic aspects, or language domains, in narratives related to psychological processes.
General approaches in the study of language
Given the complexity of language, early narrative research aimed to explore the meaning of texts or utterances in context, by employing qualitative approaches (Forgas et al., Reference Forgas, Vincze, László, Forgas, Vincze and László2014; Pennebaker, Mehl, & Niederhoffer, Reference Pennebaker, Mehl and Niederhoffer2003). Overall, qualitative research encompasses a wide range of methods whose primary objective is to capture the particular characteristics of human experience through an intensive exploration of the individual reality (Polkinghorne, Reference Polkinghorne2005). Qualitative methods are unique in its flexibility and capacity to capture complex meanings; however, they usually involved a small sample of participants, can be time-consuming, and are often considered to have an inappropriate lack of scientist rigour (Griffin, Reference Griffin2004). Because of these limitations, more recent approaches to language study have sought to use quantitative forms of text analyses (see Popping, Reference Popping2000). Quantitative approaches are based on computerized counts, statistical analyses, and classification of words; and can be more efficient and easy-to-use tools to evaluate narratives at both thematic and semantic levels (Mehl, Reference Mehl, Eid and Diener2006).
Among quantitative approaches, computerized text analysis methods are becoming increasingly popular. These can be categorized into word pattern analyses and word count strategies (see Chung & Pennebaker, Reference Chung, Pennebaker and Chauvin2011; Pennebaker et al., Reference Pennebaker, Mehl and Niederhoffer2003). Word pattern analyses explore how words covary across texts by employing a “bottom-up” strategy. For example, the Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA; e.g., Foltz, Reference Foltz1996) measures the semantic similarity between two texts by identifying relationships between the terms used. On the other hand, word count strategies offer information about the frequency in which categories of words are used in a text or narrative. Some examples are the General Inquirer, created by Stone’s team in the 1960s (Stone, Dunphy, Smith, & Ogilvie, Reference Stone, Dunphy, Smith and Ogilvie1966), and the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) by Pennebaker, Francis, and Booth (Reference Pennebaker, Francis and Booth2001), which is currently the most extensively used. The LIWC uses an external dictionary to calculate the percentage of words within a text that belong to several language domains, such as affective processes, cognitive mechanisms, and references to the past, present, and future. It has been proven useful to detect linguistic patterns associated to a great amount of psychological and social dimensions, but like other computer programs, it has the disadvantage of being independent of the semantic context of language (see Pennebaker et al., Reference Pennebaker, Mehl and Niederhoffer2003; Tausczik & Pennebaker, Reference Tausczik and Pennebaker2010).
A third approach, the judge-based thematic content analyses, straddles the border between quantitative and qualitative approaches. It is typically based on the assessment by trained raters of the presence in a text of critical themes, using language categories (usually scored as presence/absence) and language dimensions (scored in numerical scales), previously determined in established coding system (Smith, Reference Smith, Reis and Judd2000). A paradigmatic example of this approach is the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) by Morgan and Murray (Reference Morgan and Murray1935), for which coding systems have been developed to identify different themes (e.g., need for achievement or power) in histories elaborated by participants about ambiguous pictures. In the same way, several thematic content analyses have been applied in various areas of behaviour and social sciences (see Smith, Reference Smith1992). The main advantage of this kind of analysis is that, although it allows to handle quantitative data, captures better than quantitative approaches the complexity and contextual organization of human experience (see Smith, Reference Smith, Reis and Judd2000). Also, inter-rater comparisons provide the opportunity to explore the reliability of the coding system, to examine its clarity and, if necessary, to revise theoretical bases and operational definitions (Joffe & Yardley, Reference Joffe, Yardley, Marks and Yardley2004). However, judge-based thematic content analyses have been criticised by proponents of computerized text analyses, arguing that they are highly consuming of time and effort, and are not free of subjective biases (e.g., Chung & Pennebaker, Reference Chung, Pennebaker and Chauvin2011).
Language analyses of traumatic narratives
One of the most common applications of language analysis, from both qualitative and quantitative approaches, is the study of autobiographical memories in clinical contexts, and, more specifically, the study of trauma memories. Papini, Yoon, Rubin, López-Castro, and Hien (Reference Papini, Yoon, Rubin, López-Castro and Hien2015) state that “in the aftermath of trauma, language provides a distinct window into how survivors process unfathomable events” (Papini et al., Reference Papini, Yoon, Rubin, López-Castro and Hien2015, p. 295). Consequently, several linguistic measures have been used to explore structural and content features of narratives about traumatic experiences in order to assess differential linguistic elements related to the adaptation after trauma and the development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (e.g., Dekel & Bonanno, Reference Dekel and Bonanno2013; Eid, Johnsen, & Saus, Reference Eid, Johnsen and Saus2005; see Crespo & Fernández-Lansac, Reference Crespo and Fernández-Lansac2016; O’Kearney & Perrott, Reference O’Kearney and Perrott2006).
In most cases, narrative studies about trauma have been based on both qualitative and judge-based thematic content analyses, which have addressed a mix of language domains related to the memory content. In the earliest studies, researchers attempted to identify recurrent topics or themes among trauma memories. For example, Lisak (Reference Lisak1994) analysed transcribed interviews by 26 male survivors of childhood sexual abuse according to 15 psychological themes, such as anger, fear, shame and humiliation, betrayal, isolation and alienation, and negative schemas about the self. Other studies have explored the presence of linguistic elements of coherence, finding meaning, self-evaluation, appraisal or coping behaviours, as well as changes in the emotional expression along therapy in trauma narratives (e.g., Murray, Lamnin, & Carver, Reference Murray, Lamnin and Carver1989; Tuval-Mashiach et al., Reference Tuval-Mashiach, Freedman, Bargai, Boker, Hadar and Shalev2004). Additionally, different coding systems have been developed to assess a great number of language categories and dimensions such as emotional valence (e.g., Sutherland & Bryant, Reference Sutherland and Bryant2005); autonomous orientation, other/self ratio, interaction scenario, reflective comments, memory specificity, and self-defining memories (e.g., Jobson & O’Kearney, Reference Jobson and O’Kearney2006; Sutherland & Bryant, Reference Sutherland and Bryant2005); perceptual vs. conceptual memory representations (e.g., Buck, Kindt, van den Hout, Steens, & Linders, Reference Buck, Kindt, van den Hout, Steens and Linders2006); dissociation and confusion (e.g., Jones, Harvey, & Brewin, Reference Jones, Harvey and Brewin2007); and vividness and sense of reliving (e.g., Hagenaars, van Minnen, & Hoogduin, Reference Hagenaars, van Minnen and Hoogduin2009).
With regard to the narrative structure, trauma research has mainly focus on the assessment of fragmentation or narrative coherence, because an inability to construct an organized narrative has been traditionally linked to PTSD (e.g., Ehlers & Clark, Reference Ehlers and Clark2000; Foa & Riggs, Reference Foa, Riggs, Oldham, Riba and Tasman1993). Therefore, complex coding systems have been also developed to quantify heterogeneous indicators of narrative fragmentation, such as repetitions or unfinished thoughts (e.g., Foa, Molnar, & Cashman, Reference Foa, Molnar and Cashman1995), or to obtain total scores for disorganization and coherence (e.g., Freer, Whitt-Woosley, & Sprang, Reference Freer, Whitt-Woosley and Sprang2010; Hagenaars et al., Reference Hagenaars, van Minnen and Hoogduin2009; Halligan, Michael, Clark, & Ehlers, Reference Halligan, Michael, Clark and Ehlers2003).
Finally, together with both qualitative and judge-based thematic content analyses, the use of computerized programs (especially, the LIWC) is making headway in traumatic narrative research. In last years, several researchers have explored a number of LIWC domains that have proved to reveal important information about the psychological processes involved in memory elaboration and trauma adaptation (i.e., affective, cognitive, and sensory/perceptual processes, among others), sometimes including additional strategies for thematic content analysis (e.g., D’Andrea, Chiu, Casas, & Deldin, 2012; Römisch, Leban, Habermas, & Döll-Hentschker, Reference Römisch, Leban, Habermas and Döll-Hentschker2014).
In sum, narrative research of traumatic memories has combined quantitative and qualitative approaches to assess a broad range of language domains in traumatic narratives. Since both approaches present limitations, the adequacy of the methodology depends on the researcher’s objectives. Computerized text analyses can be powerful tools, especially for large samples. Nonetheless, we consider that a comprehensive understanding of the trauma experience needs to take into account the context in which language is produced. For this reason, trauma research needs to incorporate judge-based thematic content strategies, as supported by previous literature (see Crespo & Fernández-Lansac, Reference Crespo and Fernández-Lansac2016). To further investigate the main processes related to autobiographical memory construction and trauma elaboration, it is necessary to advance in the development of efficient coding systems that integrate the most important language domains identified in trauma research. These systems should be reliable enough to ensure a minimization of researcher’ subjective biases, and should be generalizable to narratives of different memories and participant’s samples.
The present study
The objective of the present study is to introduce an operative coding system, the Coding and Assessment System for Narratives of Trauma (CASNOT), that has been designed to evaluate a wide range of linguistic aspects in narratives in Spanish. This system relies on a judge-based thematic content approach aiming to assess the language use in context; and integrates the most relevant language domains identified in memory and trauma research. It seeks to be an easy, efficient, and reliable tool for language analysis in both autobiographical and traumatic narratives.
In order to explore the CASNOT properties, it was applied to assess autobiographical narratives with high emotional content (positive and traumatic/negative) using two different samples: 50 Spanish battered women (trauma-exposed group) and 50 Spanish nontrauma-exposed women (control group). In this paper we present the development of the CASNOT and provide information about its reliability coefficients.
Development of the Coding and Assessment System for Narratives of Trauma (CASNOT)
The development and application of the CASNOT was carried out through a series of consecutive but interactive steps according to the recommendations for the design of judge-based thematic content analyses and coding systems in social and clinical psychology (e.g., Bartholomew, Henderson, & Marcia, Reference Bartholomew, Henderson, Marcia, Reis and Judd2000; Chorney, McMurtry, Chambers, & Bakeman, Reference Chorney, McMurtry, Chambers and Bakeman2015; Krippendorff, Reference Krippendorff2004; Smith, Reference Smith, Reis and Judd2000). The tasks involved in developing the CASNOT are summarized in Figure 1 and will be described in detail in the following sections.
Figure 1. Steps in developing and implementing the CASNOT.
CASNOT design: Initial version
To select the linguistic domains to include in the CASNOT, we conducted an extensive literature review of previous studies that have used methods for language analyses to explore the content and structure of traumatic memories (see Crespo & Fernández-Lansac, Reference Crespo and Fernández-Lansac2016). Particular attention was paid to the existing judge-based thematic strategies developed to date in the trauma narrative area, and to the authors’ suggestions for the future improvement of coding systems. LIWC domains traditionally explored in trauma research (e.g., affective processes, cognitive mechanisms, sensory/perceptual processes) were considered also as relevant issues to include. In addition, three psychologists with expertise in PTSD and psychotraumatology assessed the proposed choice of language domains according to its significance for the study of autobiographical memories and trauma research.
For the operationalization of each domain, three information sources were consulted: (a) descriptions provided in the previous literature to define psychological processes linked to traumatic memories, (b) standard definitions provided in commonly used dictionaries (e.g., Dictionary of the Royal Academy of Spanish Language −Diccionario de la Real Academia de la Lengua Española, RAE, in Spanish−; WordReference, synonym dictionaries), and (c) the judgement of the three PTSD experts involved in the language domains selection. The aim was to incorporate common and broadly understandable variable’ descriptions. Moreover, according to the recommendations by Bartholomew et al. (Reference Bartholomew, Henderson, Marcia, Reis and Judd2000), these variables must be sufficiently detailed for its identification but abstract enough to be applicable to different types of narratives.
As a result of this process, a preliminary coding system was developed for language analysis of autobiographical memories. It was designed to be applied by trained raters using both audio and transcribed versions of the participants’ narratives. As detailed in instructions, raters should identify along the narratives the presence of utterances or language expressions that implied the experiencing of different emotions, sensations, and psychological processes (categories). Also, raters should assess the degree or intensity of various language domains (dimensions). Specifically, the initial CASNOT assessed both structural and content narrative aspects according to: (a) 11 thematic sections composed by 43 language categories (i.e., a section could be comprised of more than one category) that represented discrete dichotomous variables (present vs. absent; e.g., raters should identify the presence or absence of the “sadness” category, belonging to the “emotional processes” section); and (b) 8 language dimensions that implied a global evaluation of the whole narrative into an analogical Likert-type scale (e.g., raters should assess the emotional tone of the overall narrative in a continuous from 0 = completely positive to 4 = completely negative). Categories were not mutually exclusive; that is, the same language expression could be coded in different categories. The CASNOT encompassed an application handbook (with detailed instructions, and operational definitions and several examples for each category and dimension) and a number of record sheets.
Final version of the CASNOT
Pilot study
The three PTSD experts involved in the initial CASNOT design were trained and applied it to evaluate each set of narratives (positive, and traumatic or negative) by six participants from the study sample (three from the trauma-exposed group and three from the control group; the study sample is further described below). Narratives were randomly selected and were constant for the three raters. Raters were blind to the study objectives and to the other judges’ assessments. In addition to the coding system, raters received a feedback form instructing them to assess the clarity of the instructions and operational definitions of categories and dimensions, identifying any problem during the task and suggesting potential language domains to include or remove. The three raters and the lead researchers met to discuss any disagreement to reach consensus about which categories and dimensions captured the narrative content and to refine its definitions. Feedback from the raters resulted in a slight reduction of the number of categories (from 43 to 41), although the total number of thematic sections as well as the number of dimensions remained the same.
CASNOT application and refinement
Subsequent application of the CASNOT was carried out in two phases. In a first phase, thirteen blind raters participated. All of them were graduated Psychology students and underwent intensive training in the use of the CASNOT. As part of this training, they had to use the system in a test application. Then, the difficulties encountered were solved, and narratives from the trauma-exposed and control groups were randomly assigned to the raters. Each set of narratives (that is, positive, and traumatic/negative narratives by the same participant) was coded by three different raters. Raters received approximately half of narratives from the trauma-exposed group and half from the control group (i.e., 23–24 narrative sets), distributed in three batches. Each rater received both the audio and the transcribed version of the narratives to assess, as well as the CASNOT manual and several record sheets. The order of positive and traumatic/negative narrative for each participant was set randomly and marked on the corresponding record sheet. Narratives were identified with numerical codes to ensure participants’ anonymity, and raters signed a confidentiality commitment.
The CASNOT application was conducted between February and May 2015. Weekly meetings were established, where raters shared their difficulties and doubts. Subsequently, a further CASNOT refinement was carried out to rewrite operational definitions for problematic variables (i.e., variables with poor inter-rater reliability values according to criteria described in the data analysis section). To conduct this refinement, the three experts involved in the pilot study met with the lead researchers to reach a consensus about the changes to be made. Specifically, language categories related to the “cognitive processes” section were the most problematic and, therefore, needed to be redefined in depth. In addition, the “integration” section, composed of only one category related to the impact of the event, replaced the initial “centrality” section, composed of different categories that reflected positive and negative changes in the perception of oneself, the world, and others. Among language dimensions, “wealth of details” was redefined, and “structure” and “coherence” were integrated into a single coherence dimension. Finally, “specificity”, previously a dimension, was treated as a thematic section, which comprised four different categories. The redefined language categories and dimensions were tested in a second application phase (from December 2015 to January 2016), in which nine out of the thirteen initial raters participated. After a training session, narratives were randomly distributed among raters to recode only the refined categories and dimensions.
The final CASNOT version consisted of: (a) 40 dichotomous language categories, distributed in 12 thematic sections (see Table 1); and (b) 6 continuous language dimensions (see Table 2). Among categories, only those that belonged to the “specificity” section were mutually exclusive. A detailed description of the CASNOT categories and dimensions can be seen in the Appendix Footnote 1 .
Table 1. Inter-rater reliability of the CASNOT language categories (n = 100)
Note: P (+) = positive narratives; T/N (-) = traumatic/negative narratives.
The categories empathy/concern for the aggressor, overcoming/hope, and forgiveness only were assessed in traumatic/negative narratives; the category allusions to the negative event only was assessed in positive narratives.
Table 2. Inter-rater reliability of the CASNOT language dimensions (n = 100)
Note: P (+) = positive narratives; T/N (-) = traumatic/negative narratives.
RELIABILITY OF THE CASNOT
Method
Study sample
The sample (n = 100) consisted of 50 battered women (trauma-exposed group; ages 21-60) recruited through clinics and centres for assistance to women in the Madrid area (Spain), and 50 nontrauma-exposed women (control group; ages 20–73) from the general population. All of the participants were fluent in Spanish. Women from the trauma-exposed group had experienced violence from their intimate partner for at least 1 month. Further details about the sample have been previously published (Fernández-Lansac & Crespo, Reference Fernández-Lansac and Crespo2015).
Procedure
Trauma-exposed participants were asked to narrate their most distressing episode of abuse (traumatic event), and control group participants their most stressful life event (negative event). Both groups also described the happiest event of their lives (positive event). Previously, to familiarize the participants with the narrative task, they had to narrate a normal day in their life as a neutral event. The instructions were as follows:
Please tell me about your daily activities for today/the happiest event/the worst event (or worst episode of violence). Tell me as you remember it, in the most detailed way possible. I would like you to tell me what happened just as it occurs in your mind. Tell me like I was a friend, and try to describe everything that you can remember: what took place, what you did, what you felt, what you thought… During your description, I will not interrupt you. You can say whatever you want, with absolute freedom, and you can take as much time as you need. We will start and finish whenever you want.
The order of episodes (traumatic/negative and positive) was randomly counterbalanced across participants, although the neutral narrative was always the first. Narratives were uninterrupted, audio-recorded, and then transcribed verbatim. This procedure was previously tested in a pilot study (n = 5).
The first author interviewed all of the women from the trauma-exposed group. Women from the control group were interviewed by female Master’s psychology students, who were intensively trained for this purpose. Participation in the study was voluntary and was carried out after participants were informed about the procedure and data confidentiality, and after their written consent was obtained. The Ethics Committee of the university approved this study.
Within the trauma-exposed group, 62.0% of the women had experienced physical aggressions in the worst episode of abuse (i.e., traumatic event), 12.0% sexual abuse, and all of them psychological abuse (100.0%). The control group selected as the worst life events the loved one’s death (58.0%) or illness (16.0%), an experience of family abuse (6.0%), or job problems (4.0%), among others. Positive events that were selected included the pregnancy or birth of a child (50.0% of trauma-exposed group participants and 32.0% of controls), a happy moment shared with children or other loved ones (28.0% and 16.0%, respectively), the wedding day (4.0% and 10.0%), or a professional or academic achievement (2.0% and 22.0%). Among the trauma-exposed participants, 8.0% of them selected as their happiest moment the separation or divorce from their abuser.
Data analysis
SPSS version 20 was used to perform statistical analysis. Because three independent raters coded each narrative, final scores were calculated using the mean for language dimensions (continuous variables), and the score (0 for absence and 1 for presence) most commonly assigned for language categories (i.e., final score assigned to a category was based on the score by at least two raters).
To explore psychometric properties of the CASNOT, three inter-rater reliability measures were used for both positive [P (+)] and negative or traumatic narratives [T/N (-)], separately. First, exploratory analyses were conducted to assess the percentage of absolute agreements for language categories. Absolute agreement was defined as the percentage of times that the three raters provided identical evaluations (i.e., 0 or 1) divided by the total number of ratings.
Second, the Free-marginal Multirater Kappa (multirater Kfree; Randolph, 2005) was also calculated for each of the language categories. The multirater Kfree is an alternative to Fleiss’s Kappa, a variant of Cohen’s Kappa, which is a chance-adjusted index of agreement for nominal variables and any number of raters (Fleiss, Reference Fleiss1971). Since Fleiss’ Kappa is affected by prevalence, low kappa and high inter-rater agreement could paradoxically occur. Alternatively, multirater Kfree is appropriate for studies that have free-marginal distributions, such as the present study, in which there are no restrictions in the distribution of judgements over categories. Values of kappa range from –1.0 (perfect disagreement) to 1.0 (perfect agreement about chance). According to Landis and Koch (Reference Landis and Koch1977), kappa coefficients above .40 are considered acceptable, and values above .75 are considered excellent.
Finally, inter-rater reliabilities for language dimensions were calculated using one-way random, average-measures Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) for both P (+) and T/N (-) narratives. ICC is suitable for ordinal and interval ratio variables and for two or more raters (Shrout & Fleiss, Reference Shrout and Fleiss1979). Cicchetti (Reference Cicchetti1994) cutoffs were adopted, with values above .40 considered to be fair, values between .60 and .74 considered to be good, and values above .75 considered to be excellent. It should be note that usually in narrative studies greater reliability values are expected, however some authors claim that no language assessment method can reliably capture psychological qualities at rates higher than 80.0% (e.g., Chung & Pennebaker, Reference Chung, Pennebaker and Chauvin2011).
Results
Overall, the percentage of absolute agreement for language categories was 78.2%. Considering both P (+) and T/N (-) narratives together, absolute agreement was 79.2% for “emotional processes”, 84.5% for “bodily states and symptoms”, 73.3% for “sensory/perceptual processes”, 63.2% for “cognitive processes”, 74.0% for “references to other people”, 86.0% for “self-evaluations”, 89.0% for “meaning”, 64.5% for “integration”, 90.5% for “overcoming”, 70.5% for “memory consistency”, 86.6% for “other aspects”, and 76.7% for “event specificity”. Absolute agreement was in general lower for T/N (-) narratives than for P (+) narratives. For T/N (-) and P (+) narratives, the percentage of identical ratings was 73.4% and 82.1%, respectively. Additionally, by comparing scores for trauma-exposed and control groups, raters showed a lower agreement when assessing trauma narratives. Absolute agreement was 69.7% for T (-) narratives and 77.2% for N (-) narratives.
Table 1 shows the multirater Kfree coefficients (Kappa) for all of the language categories, and Table 2 the ICCs for the language dimensions. As displayed in Table 1, raters achieved acceptable to excellent levels of agreement for most of the categories in both P (+) and T/N (-) narratives. Kappa coefficients were less than .40 only for the residual “other negative emotions” category and for the categories included in the “cognitive processes” section. However, the analyses showed that agreement in “other negative emotions” was poor only when raters coded T/N (-) narratives but not when they coded P (+). To examine whether inter-rater reliability for this category was affected by the group (trauma-exposed vs. control), kappa coefficients were calculated separately for T (-) and N (-) narratives. Unfortunately, the results showed that values were poor for narratives from both groups; kappa was .23 for T (-) narratives and .36 for N (-) narratives. Regarding the “cognitive processes” section, agreement between raters was satisfactory when assessing “lack of control/helplessness” and “control/planning” categories for narratives from the control group: kappa values were .25 for T (-) and .49 for N (-) for “lack of control/helplessness”, and .28 and .47, respectively, for “control/planning”. Nevertheless, agreement for “rationalization/elaboration” was unsatisfactory for both groups: kappa coefficients were .31 for T (-) and .25 for N (-).
Finally, as shown in Table 2, the ICCs of all of the language dimensions, for both P (+) and T/N (-) narratives, were above .50, indicating at least a moderate inter-rater agreement. Moreover, values were good for most of the dimensions, and excellent or almost excellent for “emotional tone” and “spatial” and “temporal orientation”.
Discussion
The present study proposes an innovative and comprehensive coding system for analysing several structural and content aspects of narratives about autobiographical experiences, which is especially recommended for the assessment of traumatic memories. This coding system, named CASNOT, relies on the judge-based thematic content analysis. Therefore, it allows exploration of a wide range of linguistic domains within the natural language context, but like methods based on quantitative approaches seeks to be an efficient and reliable tool for narrative analysis. Since the CASNOT includes a great number of language categories and dimensions related to psychological processes, it would be potentially useful in research and in clinical psychology; it can be adapted to the specific requirements of researchers and clinicians, and could become a reference for language coding systems in other idioms.
The need to develop operative and integrative measures to evaluate narrative content and structure has been a recurrent challenge in the study of autobiographical memories and trauma research. For example, some authors have noted that a mix of criteria to define narrative organization prevents definitive conclusions about the hypothesized fragmentation of traumatic memories, and terms such as coherence or cohesion are often confused (see Crespo & Fernández-Lansac, Reference Crespo and Fernández-Lansac2016; O’Kearney & Perrot, 2006). To select and define the language categories and dimensions of the CASNOT, we have taken into account authors’ recommendations aiming to establish a solid and unified theoretical framework. However, one of our primary objectives has been to capture shared and common meanings (i.e., it addresses the typical way in which language is understood in its context). This goal has prevailed in the decision-making processes. For instance, we initially introduced two separate fragmentation dimensions (i.e., coherence and structure) in response to the researchers’ concerns. Nevertheless, after noticing the difficulties encountered by raters in distinguishing between these two dimensions, a single coherence dimension that integrated both constructs was created. In the same way, other overlapping constructs have been merged in order to minimize discrepancies and to adopt helpful and operational definitions. On the other hand, due to the great complexity in measuring narrative aspects, dichotomous values were considered to be a good option to value language categories, since they reduce the risk of subjective bias, and the time and effort to invest in the application of the system.
The development of the CASNOT followed a series of consecutive steps to guarantee its reliability and applicability. First, together with an extended literature review, we consulted a wide variety of information resources, including experts’ views. In addition, regular meetings with raters were set up to discuss any application problems and to collect any suggestions for improvement. This strategy has helped to reach an in-depth understanding of the coding system in all of our researchers, to refine the operationalization of categories and dimensions, and to ensure the standardization of the coding procedures. Second, the CASNOT has been applied on a clinical sample composed of battered women who were exposed to long lasting traumatic experiences. Further, a control group was established, and the coding system was tested on narratives about highly intense autobiographical memories with different emotional valence. Finally, inter-rater agreement analyses have been crucial to ensure the reliability of the coding system. Because agreement coefficients were provided for all the language categories and dimensions separately, and according to different narratives, data point which specific domains are more prone to subjective bias and are less generalizable to distinct types of narratives.
Results showed that the vast majority of categories and dimensions that composed the CASNOT were sufficiently reliable. Exceptions were the categories related to the identification of “other negative emotions” and of several cognitive processes (e.g., processes that reflect lack of control or helplessness feelings, or rationalization or elaboration of traumatic memories). Regarding the former, results are not surprising because it includes negative emotions that were not addressed in the previously established emotion categories; actually, “other negative emotions” is a residual category that could act as a catchall. On the other hand, identifying the presence of different cognitive processes is likely the most difficult task for the raters. Cognitive processing words have been considered to reveal narrative aspects related to conceptual organization, but language measures have often failed in capturing these processes involved in the memory construction. For example, the LIWC makes no distinction between language expressions that indicate understanding (i.e., organized thoughts) and confusion (i.e., disorganized thoughts) (Jelinek et al., Reference Jelinek, Stockbauer, Randjbar, Kellner, Ehring and Moritz2010). Because we analysed language use in its natural context, our goal was to determine which specific thoughts emerge in trauma narratives, paying attention to cognitive processes that reflect attempts to cope with and understand the traumatic situation. In the first application phase of the CASNOT, categories from the “cognitive processes” section obtained low levels of agreement among raters and were consequently redefined. Specifically, categories such as lack of control and helplessness should merge, and categories related to internal and external attributions should be removed. Nonetheless, cognitive processes remained the most problematic section even after refinement. This result evidences the difficulty in capturing cognitive processes via narrative analysis because they refer to complex constructs and are less familiar to external raters than other language domains. Future efforts should aim to provide more operational definitions for the different cognitive processes, even though this proposal is a good starting point for further developing of improved narrative measures.
Notwithstanding its contributions, the present study has some limitations. First, despite the above-mentioned advantages, the use of dichotomous variables for language categories provides restricted information. Regarding the inter-rater reliability analyses, we chose the multirater Kfree coefficient, which does not have restrictions in the number of cases that should be distributed into each category and does not distinguish between agreements in coding “presence” and “absence”. Consequently, we could assume that high levels of inter-rater agreement for positive narratives might be due to the great number of absences. In fact, exploratory analyses confirm that high levels of agreement were more probable in relation to absences. In the same way, some categories with high kappa values (e.g., anger towards oneself) were also those that were less frequently identified in the narrative analysis. It is worth noting, however, that none of the categories were absent in all the narratives, and, therefore, all of them reflect psychological processes that could be recognized. Another aspect that could have affected to the CASNOT reliability is the participation of a large number of raters. According to the recommendations (Chorney et al., Reference Chorney, McMurtry, Chambers and Bakeman2015; Krippendorff, Reference Krippendorff2004), all the raters had similar levels of professional expertise and appropriate backgrounds, and were properly trained. However, the variety of raters with different personal features would increase the heterogeneity in coding; even though the CASNOT demonstrated good psychometric properties overall.
In sum, the present study, within its limitations, introduces an efficient and reliable method to assess language domains related to psychological processes involved in the narrative construction of meaningful autobiographical memories. In particular, the CASNOT could be a powerful tool for the analysis of traumatic memories and, therefore, for the analysis of how individuals elaborate and cope with their most significant experiences.
Appendix
Description of the CASNOT language categories and dimensions
