The German PCL-5: evaluating structural validity in a large-scale sample of the general German population.

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Amelie Pettrich, Michael Friedrich, Yuriy Nesterko, Heide Glaesmer
{"title":"The German PCL-5: evaluating structural validity in a large-scale sample of the general German population.","authors":"Amelie Pettrich, Michael Friedrich, Yuriy Nesterko, Heide Glaesmer","doi":"10.1080/20008066.2024.2317055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> In attempts to elucidate PTSD, recent factor analytic studies resulted in complex models with a proliferating number of factors that lack psychometrical and clinical utility. Recently, suggestions have been made to optimize factor analytic practices to meet a refined set of statistical and psychometric criteria.<b>Objective:</b> This study aims to assess the factorial structure of the German version of the PCL-5, implementing recent methodological advancements to address the risk of overfitting models. In doing so we diverge from traditional factor analytical research on PTSD.<b>Method:</b> On a large-scale sample of the German general population (<i>n</i> = 1625), exploratory factor analyses were run to investigate the dimensionality found within the data. Subsequently, we validated and compared all model suggestions from our preliminary analyses plus all standard and common alternative PTSD factor models (including the ICD-11 model) from previous literature with confirmatory factor analyses. We not only consider model fit indices based on WLSMV estimation but also deploy criteria such as favouring less complex models with a parsimonious number of factors, sufficient items per factor, low inter-factor correlations and number of model misspecifications.<b>Results:</b> All tested models showed adequate to excellent fit in respect to traditional model fit indices; however, models with two or more factors increasingly failed to meet other statistical and psychometric criteria.<b>Conclusion:</b> Based on the results we favour a two-factor bifactor model with a strong general PTSD factor and two less dominant specific factors - one factor with trauma-related symptoms (re-experiencing and avoidance) and one factor with global psychological symptoms (describing the trauma's higher-order impact on mood, cognition, behaviour and arousal).From the perspective of clinical utility, we recommend the cut-off scoring method for the German version of the PCL-5. Basic psychometric properties and scale characteristics are provided.</p>","PeriodicalId":12055,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychotraumatology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10883083/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychotraumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20008066.2024.2317055","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In attempts to elucidate PTSD, recent factor analytic studies resulted in complex models with a proliferating number of factors that lack psychometrical and clinical utility. Recently, suggestions have been made to optimize factor analytic practices to meet a refined set of statistical and psychometric criteria.Objective: This study aims to assess the factorial structure of the German version of the PCL-5, implementing recent methodological advancements to address the risk of overfitting models. In doing so we diverge from traditional factor analytical research on PTSD.Method: On a large-scale sample of the German general population (n = 1625), exploratory factor analyses were run to investigate the dimensionality found within the data. Subsequently, we validated and compared all model suggestions from our preliminary analyses plus all standard and common alternative PTSD factor models (including the ICD-11 model) from previous literature with confirmatory factor analyses. We not only consider model fit indices based on WLSMV estimation but also deploy criteria such as favouring less complex models with a parsimonious number of factors, sufficient items per factor, low inter-factor correlations and number of model misspecifications.Results: All tested models showed adequate to excellent fit in respect to traditional model fit indices; however, models with two or more factors increasingly failed to meet other statistical and psychometric criteria.Conclusion: Based on the results we favour a two-factor bifactor model with a strong general PTSD factor and two less dominant specific factors - one factor with trauma-related symptoms (re-experiencing and avoidance) and one factor with global psychological symptoms (describing the trauma's higher-order impact on mood, cognition, behaviour and arousal).From the perspective of clinical utility, we recommend the cut-off scoring method for the German version of the PCL-5. Basic psychometric properties and scale characteristics are provided.

德国 PCL-5:在大规模德国普通人群样本中评估结构有效性。
背景:在试图阐明创伤后应激障碍的过程中,最近的因素分析研究产生了复杂的模型,其中的因素数量激增,但却缺乏心理计量学和临床实用性。最近,有人建议对因子分析方法进行优化,以符合一套完善的统计和心理测量标准:本研究旨在评估德文版 PCL-5 的因子结构,采用最新的先进方法来解决模型过拟合的风险。在此过程中,我们与创伤后应激障碍的传统因子分析研究有所不同:方法:在大规模的德国普通人群样本(n = 1625)中,我们进行了探索性因子分析,以研究数据中发现的维度。随后,我们对初步分析中提出的所有模型建议,以及以往文献中所有标准和常见的创伤后应激障碍替代因素模型(包括 ICD-11 模型)进行了确认性因素分析验证和比较。我们不仅考虑了基于 WLSMV 估计的模型拟合指数,而且还采用了一些标准,如倾向于选择复杂性较低的模型,这些模型应具有合理的因素数量、每个因素有足够的项目、因素间相关性较低以及模型失当的数量等:根据传统的模型拟合指数,所有测试模型都显示出足够或出色的拟合度;然而,包含两个或更多因素的模型越来越不符合其他统计和心理测量标准:根据测试结果,我们倾向于采用双因素模型,即一个强有力的创伤后应激障碍一般因素和两个主导性较弱的特定因素--一个是创伤相关症状因素(再经历和回避),另一个是整体心理症状因素(描述创伤对情绪、认知、行为和唤醒的高阶影响)。我们还提供了基本的心理测量特性和量表特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
12.00%
发文量
153
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Psychotraumatology (EJPT) is a peer-reviewed open access interdisciplinary journal owned by the European Society of Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS). The European Journal of Psychotraumatology (EJPT) aims to engage scholars, clinicians and researchers in the vital issues of how to understand, prevent and treat the consequences of stress and trauma, including but not limited to, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depressive disorders, substance abuse, burnout, and neurobiological or physical consequences, using the latest research or clinical experience in these areas. The journal shares ESTSS’ mission to advance and disseminate scientific knowledge about traumatic stress. Papers may address individual events, repeated or chronic (complex) trauma, large scale disasters, or violence. Being open access, the European Journal of Psychotraumatology is also evidence of ESTSS’ stand on free accessibility of research publications to a wider community via the web. The European Journal of Psychotraumatology seeks to attract contributions from academics and practitioners from diverse professional backgrounds, including, but not restricted to, those in mental health, social sciences, and health and welfare services. Contributions from outside Europe are welcome. The journal welcomes original basic and clinical research articles that consolidate and expand the theoretical and professional basis of the field of traumatic stress; Review articles including meta-analyses; short communications presenting new ideas or early-stage promising research; study protocols that describe proposed or ongoing research; case reports examining a single individual or event in a real‑life context; clinical practice papers sharing experience from the clinic; letters to the Editor debating articles already published in the Journal; inaugural Lectures; conference abstracts and book reviews. Both quantitative and qualitative research is welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信