The impact of item order on the factor structure of the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
C Laurel Franklin, Amanda M Raines, Kate E Clauss, Brandon Koscinski, Kevin Saulnier, Nicholas P Allan, Margo C Villarosa-Hurlocker, Jessica L Chambliss, Jessica L Walton, Michael McCormick
{"title":"The impact of item order on the factor structure of the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5.","authors":"C Laurel Franklin, Amanda M Raines, Kate E Clauss, Brandon Koscinski, Kevin Saulnier, Nicholas P Allan, Margo C Villarosa-Hurlocker, Jessica L Chambliss, Jessica L Walton, Michael McCormick","doi":"10.1002/jts.23103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) is the most widely used self-report measure of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and is frequently modeled as having four correlated factors consistent with the DSM-5 symptom structure. Some researchers have argued that item order may influence factor structure. Although two studies have examined this, they were both based on DSM-IV criteria, and neither utilized a randomized design. Thus, this study aimed to determine whether item order impacts the factor structure of the PCL-5, using two independent samples of community participants (N = 347, 67.7% female, 85.3% White) and veterans (N = 409, 83.6% male, 61.9% Black/African American). Approximately half of each sample was randomized to receive the PCL-5 in the original fixed order, whereas the other half received a uniquely randomized version. We compared the DSM-5 four-factor model to several theoretically relevant models and found improved model fit in the seven-factor hybrid model, community sample: ∆χ<sup>2</sup> = 153.87, p < .001; veterans: ∆χ<sup>2</sup> = 152.61, p < . 001. Consequently, the DSM-5 four-factor and seven-factor hybrid models were retained for invariance testing. Across both samples, measurement invariance was examined between the randomized and fixed-order groups. Configural invariance, partial metric invariance, and partial scalar invariance were achieved in both samples, ps = .054-.822, suggesting that the fit of the DSM-5 four-factor structure and the seven-factor hybrid model, as measured using the PCL-5, are not due to order effects. These findings support the continued use of the PCL-5 in a fixed fashion.</p>","PeriodicalId":17519,"journal":{"name":"Journal of traumatic stress","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of traumatic stress","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.23103","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) is the most widely used self-report measure of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and is frequently modeled as having four correlated factors consistent with the DSM-5 symptom structure. Some researchers have argued that item order may influence factor structure. Although two studies have examined this, they were both based on DSM-IV criteria, and neither utilized a randomized design. Thus, this study aimed to determine whether item order impacts the factor structure of the PCL-5, using two independent samples of community participants (N = 347, 67.7% female, 85.3% White) and veterans (N = 409, 83.6% male, 61.9% Black/African American). Approximately half of each sample was randomized to receive the PCL-5 in the original fixed order, whereas the other half received a uniquely randomized version. We compared the DSM-5 four-factor model to several theoretically relevant models and found improved model fit in the seven-factor hybrid model, community sample: ∆χ2 = 153.87, p < .001; veterans: ∆χ2 = 152.61, p < . 001. Consequently, the DSM-5 four-factor and seven-factor hybrid models were retained for invariance testing. Across both samples, measurement invariance was examined between the randomized and fixed-order groups. Configural invariance, partial metric invariance, and partial scalar invariance were achieved in both samples, ps = .054-.822, suggesting that the fit of the DSM-5 four-factor structure and the seven-factor hybrid model, as measured using the PCL-5, are not due to order effects. These findings support the continued use of the PCL-5 in a fixed fashion.

项目顺序对 DSM-5 PTSD 核对表因子结构的影响。
针对 DSM-5 的创伤后应激障碍核对表(PCL-5)是创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)最广泛使用的自我报告测量工具,经常被模拟为具有与 DSM-5 症状结构一致的四个相关因子。一些研究人员认为,项目顺序可能会影响因子结构。虽然有两项研究对此进行了研究,但它们都是基于 DSM-IV 标准,而且都没有采用随机设计。因此,本研究旨在利用社区参与者(人数=347,67.7%为女性,85.3%为白人)和退伍军人(人数=409,83.6%为男性,61.9%为黑人/非裔美国人)两个独立样本,确定项目顺序是否会影响 PCL-5 的因子结构。每个样本中约有一半的人被随机安排按原来的固定顺序接受 PCL-5,而另一半人则接受独特的随机版本。我们将 DSM-5 四因素模型与几个理论上相关的模型进行了比较,发现七因素混合模型的模型拟合度有所提高,社区样本:Δχ2 = 153.87,P 2 = 152.61,P 2 = 152.61,P 2 = 152.61。
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
5.80
自引率
6.10%
发文量
125
期刊介绍: Journal of Traumatic Stress (JTS) is published for the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. Journal of Traumatic Stress , the official publication for the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, is an interdisciplinary forum for the publication of peer-reviewed original papers on biopsychosocial aspects of trauma. Papers focus on theoretical formulations, research, treatment, prevention education/training, and legal and policy concerns. Journal of Traumatic Stress serves as a primary reference for professionals who study and treat people exposed to highly stressful and traumatic events (directly or through their occupational roles), such as war, disaster, accident, violence or abuse (criminal or familial), hostage-taking, or life-threatening illness. The journal publishes original articles, brief reports, review papers, commentaries, and, from time to time, special issues devoted to a single topic.
×
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