Current Memory Betrayal Blindness Questionnaire (CM-BBQ, BBQ)

Abstract

The Current Memory Betrayal Blindness Questionnaire (CM-BBQ), developed by Gómez, Zounlome, and Noll (2023), is an 18-item psychological instrument designed to evaluate the current impact and manifestation of interpersonal trauma in individuals, particularly focusing on how these events are currently remembered. The CM-BBQ is part of a larger suite of measures known as the Betrayal Blindness Questionnaires (BBQs), which also includes the Past Memory Betrayal Blindness Questionnaire (PM-BBQ) and the Rotating Betrayal Blindness Questionnaire (R-BBQ). This specific scale addresses the concept of Betrayal Blindness as it relates to current cognitive and emotional processing of the traumatic event. Initial validation of the CM-BBQ utilized a sample of emerging adults of Color with reported histories of trauma, with subsequent reporting of robust Internal Consistency and factor structure results.

Keywords

Betrayal Blindness Questionnaire, Current Memory, Influential, Not Important, People of Color, Trauma Memory, Unawareness, Wanton Disbelief, Interpersonal Trauma, Autobiographical Memory.

Authors

Gómez, Jennifer M., Zounlome, Nelson O. O., Noll, Laura K.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the CM-BBQ is to serve as a tool for basic and applied psychological research. It is specifically intended to facilitate a more nuanced examination of nonlinear changes occurring in autobiographical memory following trauma exposure.

By assessing the current mental state regarding the traumatic event, the CM-BBQ helps researchers understand how the memory of betrayal trauma is actively processed and integrated (or avoided) in the present, particularly within populations who may experience compounded systemic betrayal.

Construct

The CM-BBQ measures the psychological construct of Betrayal Blindness as it manifests in the current experience of trauma memory. Betrayal Blindness, initially theorized by Freyd (1996), describes a lack of awareness, attention, or memory concerning trauma when the perpetrator is an attachment figure whose ongoing relationship is vital to the victim’s survival.

The CM-BBQ operationalizes this current impact through four distinct subscales: Influential, Wanton Disbelief, Unawareness, and Not Important. These dimensions capture the spectrum from active hyper-focus on the event (Influential) to conscious or unconscious minimization or denial (Not Important, Unawareness).

Validity

Based on the initial published report, No validity indicated was formally reported for the CM-BBQ. Future research efforts are necessary to establish the scale’s comprehensive psychometric properties, including construct, criterion, and concurrent validity across various demographic groups.

Reliability

Reliability was established primarily through measures of Internal Consistency using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. The overall scale demonstrated a lower, yet often acceptable, alpha coefficient of .66. However, the four retained subscales showed strong to moderate internal consistency, indicating that items within each subscale reliably measure their intended latent construct:

• Influential: α = .88
• Wanton Disbelief: α = .73
• Unawareness: α = .79
• Not Important: α = .78

Factor Analysis

An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted to determine the underlying structure of the 18 items. Based on parallel analysis, five factors were initially suggested for the CM-BBQ. However, the final composition of the measure was determined by a rigorous set of psychometric criteria aimed at maximizing clarity and conceptual coherence.

The criteria applied for item retention and determination of the final four-factor structure included:

1. Factor loadings greater than .40.
2. No cross-loadings exceeding .20.
3. Items that were conceptually sound as determined by the authors.
4. Internal consistency estimates greater than .65 for the resultant subscales.

Applying this approach, the authors retained 18 items distributed across four subscales for the final questionnaire.

Instrument

Test Type: Original

Format: Item responses are given on a 4-point scale, ranging from 0 (Never true for me) to 3 (Always true for me), with higher scores indicating a greater current impact of trauma.

Language Available: English

Population Group: Human; Male; Female

Age Group: Adulthood (18 yrs & older)

Population Details: Respondents utilized in the initial validation study were college students of Color at a Predominantly White University in the United States.

Test Methodology: Test Reliability; Internal Consistency; Factor Analysis; Exploratory Factor Analysis

Keywords

Betrayal Blindness, Current Memory, Trauma Impact, Emerging Adults, Psychological Measurement, Factor Analysis, Trauma Memory.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: No data is Available

Affiliation Email addresses:

• Gómez, Jennifer M.: Boston University, School of Social Work and Center for Innovation in Social Work & Health
• Zounlome, Nelson O. O.: University of Kentucky, Department of Educational, School, & Counseling Psychology
• Noll, Laura K.: Northern Arizona University, Department of Psychological Sciences

Correspondence Address:
Gómez, Jennifer M.: Boston University, 264 Bay State Road, Boston, Massachusetts, United States, 02215, [email protected]

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Permissions: Contact Publisher

Fee: No

Test Year: 2023

References

Gómez, J. M., Zounlome, N. O. O., & Noll, L. K. (2023). Development and initial validation of the Betrayal Blindness Questionnaires (BBQs). Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 32(3), 449–466. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2022.2112339

Items of the Current Memory Betrayal Blindness Questionnaire (CM-BBQ, BBQ)

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

This is an 18-item scale.
Subscales: Influential; Wanton Disbelief; Unawareness; Not Important.
The specific items are available in the source reference: Table 3, Page 458.

Each item has the stem: “Think back to this same event(s) you reported. Please indicate to what extent the following statements describe your experience of that event(s) NOW . . .”

---

Items

Influential
17. Now, the event(s) is often the focus of my thoughts.
18. Now, the event(s) is very important to me.
15. Now, the event(s) is all consuming.
10. Now, the event(s) is part of my identity.
6. Now, the event(s) affects my decision-making.
2. Now, I can’t stop remembering the event(s) even if I tried.

Wanton Disbelief
12. Now, there are times I believe the event(s) didn’t happen.

1. Now, part of me is aware the event(s) happened but part of me isn’t.

2. Now, if asked I would have said the event(s) didn’t happen.

3. Now, I want to believe the event(s) didn’t happen.

Unawareness
14. Now, I don’t remember the event(s) but was told it happened by someone else.
13. Now, sometimes I try to remember the event(s) but can’t.
4. Now, I try to remember the details of the event(s) but I can’t.
8. Now, sometimes I want to remember the event(s) but I can’t.

Not Important
7. Now, the event(s) is insignificant.
11. Now, the event(s) really didn’t have an effect on me.
9. Now, the event(s) is not important.
16. Now, I am consciously aware the event(s) happened but not emotionally connected to it.

---

Note: Items are rated from 0=Never true for me to 3=Always true for me.