ABSTRACT
The past two decades have brought considerable advances in our understanding, assessment, and treatment of retraumatization. However, if this field is to continue meaningful advancement, it must evolve in theoretical sophistication and precise specifications of relevant constructs. As a first step in spurring scientific progress, we believe that those who work in this area should come to some level of consensus about what is meant by terms such as revictimization, retraumatization, and multiple experiences of trauma. Are these terms synonymous with one another, or do they point to subtly different constructs? Are we referring to all potentially traumatic events (PTEs) when we talk about retraumatization, or are only those PTEs that lead to symptoms relevant to this field? Without a greater level of conceptual clarity on these issues, we believe that the field of retraumatization will lack the appropriate framework to continue advancing in ways that will lead to improved clinical care and prevention. This chapter will highlight a series of questions and controversies related to the conceptual understanding of retraumatization, which we believe merit further attention due to their clinical, research, and policy implications.
