3.1. Sample Description

Based on these criteria, we included the following group of participants:

Eight participants, aged between 9 and 13 during the traumatic event in 1937–1938, but now elderly, experienced the massacre, and were forcibly relocated with their families to western Turkey. Ten participants and their families belong to the second generation, who were born and grew up in western Turkey. They still live in western Turkey. Twelve other participants belong to the third generation and were born and raised in Germany.

Procedures:

Qualitative component:

An interview guideline was developed, discussed with the interviewers and corrected, and the final version accepted. The interviews for the qualitative part of the survey were recorded, transcribed, and rendered anonymous by four trained psychologists.

Each participant was contacted and asked by the author to give informed consent. Written consent was obtained from all participants after the study had been explained.

The participants were visited in their home by the trained psychologist and completed the interview face-to-face. Interviews were recorded on a digital audio device, pseudonymized, transcribed, and analyzed on a PC. Evaluation was conducted according to qualitative content analysis after Mayring [44]. The analysis and building of categories were supported by Atlas.ti 5.2.12 (ScientificSoftware Development GmbH). Categories were developed inductively from the material in an interplay with the theory (research questions). The interviews were analyzed on the basis of a code system with the following steps: selection of units for analysis, definitions of the dimensions for structuring, definition of the characteristics and development of the code system, description of definitions, examples and rules for coding, coding, extraction of the codes, revision of the code system and further coding and interpretation, and preparation of results. In order to meet the quality criteria of qualitative research, in particular intersubjective comprehensibility [29], two master’s degree students at the university developed main categories and sub-categories from the responses inductively and independently of each other. The classifications were compared and discussed from the point of view of a consensual coding. This procedure ensured both inter-subjectivity and comprehensibility of the results [44]. Major categories and subcategories were discussed with the two students during consensus meetings until mutual agreement was reached. The author (JIK) re-coded the material according to the final categories.

The ethics board of the University of Duhok in Northern Iraq approved the study.

The following test instruments were used for the quantitative part of the study to assess different relevant social and clinical aspects.