Although evidence suggests that individuals’ appraisals (i.e., subjective interpretations) of adverse or traumatic life events may serve as a mechanism accounting for differences in adversity exposure and psychological adjustment, understanding this mechanism is contingent on our ability to reliably and consistently measure appraisals. However, measures have varied widely between studies, making conclusions about how best to measure appraisal a challenge for the field. To address this issue, the present study reviewed 88 articles from three research databases, assessing adults’ appraisals of adversity. To be included in the scoping review, articles had to meet the following criteria: (1) published no earlier than 1999, (2) available in English, (3) published as a primary source manuscript, and (4) included a measure assessing for adults’ (over the age of 18) subjective primary and/or secondary interpretations of adversity. Each article was thoroughly reviewed and coded based on the following information: study demographics, appraisal measurement tool(s), category of appraisal, appraisal dimensions (e.g., self-blame, impact, and threat), and the tool’s reliability and validity. Further, information was coded according to the type of adversity appraised, the time in which the appraised event occurred, and which outcomes were assessed in relation to appraisal. Results highlight the importance of continued examination of adversity appraisals and reveal which appraisal tools, categories, and dimensions are most commonly assessed for. These results provide guidance to researchers in how to examine adversity appraisals and what gaps among the measurement of adversity appraisal which need to be addressed in the future research.

尽管有证据表明，个人对不利或创伤性生活事件的评价（即主观解释）可能是一种解释逆境暴露和心理调整差异的机制，但理解这一机制取决于我们可靠和一致地衡量评价的能力。然而，研究之间的衡量标准差异很大，因此就如何最好地衡量评估得出结论是该领域面临的挑战。为了解决这个问题，本研究回顾了来自三个研究数据库的 88 篇文章，评估了成年人对逆境的评价。要被纳入范围审查，文章必须符合以下标准：(1) 发表时间不早于 1999 年，(2) 有英文版本，(3) 作为主要来源手稿发表，(4) 包括评估成人（18 岁以上）对逆境的主观主要和/或次要解释的措施。每篇文章都根据以下信息进行了全面审查和编码：研究人口统计、评估测量工具、评估类别、评估维度（例如，自责、影响和威胁）以及工具的可靠性和有效性。此外，信息根据评估的逆境类型、评估事件发生的时间以及与评估相关的评估结果进行编码。结果强调了继续检查逆境评估的重要性，并揭示了哪些评估工具、类别和维度最常被评估。