Psychometric Evaluation of the Weekly Version of the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5.

IF 3.5 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Benjamin C Darnell, Maya Bina N Vannini, Antonio Morgan-López, Stephanie E Brown, Breanna Grunthal, Willie J Hale, Stacey Young-McCaughan, Peter T Fox, Donald D McGeary, Patricia A Resick, Denise M Sloan, Daniel J Taylor, Richard P Schobitz, Christian C Schrader, Jeffrey S Yarvis, Terence M Keane, Alan L Peterson, Brett T Litz
{"title":"Psychometric Evaluation of the Weekly Version of the PTSD Checklist for <i>DSM</i>-5.","authors":"Benjamin C Darnell, Maya Bina N Vannini, Antonio Morgan-López, Stephanie E Brown, Breanna Grunthal, Willie J Hale, Stacey Young-McCaughan, Peter T Fox, Donald D McGeary, Patricia A Resick, Denise M Sloan, Daniel J Taylor, Richard P Schobitz, Christian C Schrader, Jeffrey S Yarvis, Terence M Keane, Alan L Peterson, Brett T Litz","doi":"10.1177/10731911251321929","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) Checklist for <i>Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition</i> (<i>DSM-5</i>; PCL-5) was designed and validated to track symptoms over the past month (PCL-5-M), yet an untested ad hoc weekly version (PCL-5-W) is commonly used to track changes during treatment. We used archival data of clinical trials for the treatment of PTSD in veterans to assess the construct validity of PCL-5-W. Both PCL-5-M and PCL-5-W were found to have configural measurement invariance across four consecutive administrations. The results also indicated at least partial metric and scalar invariance for each version. The reliability estimates of PCL-5-M and PCL-5-W at each time point were equivalent. However, we found a discrepancy with regard to concurrent validity; correlations with the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire may be meaningfully different between PCL-5-M and PCL-5-W. Nevertheless, overall, the results suggest that PCL-5-W can be validly used to assess PTSD symptoms over time, but factor scores may need to be tracked alongside total scores to address validity concerns.</p>","PeriodicalId":8577,"journal":{"name":"Assessment","volume":" ","pages":"10731911251321929"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911251321929","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5; PCL-5) was designed and validated to track symptoms over the past month (PCL-5-M), yet an untested ad hoc weekly version (PCL-5-W) is commonly used to track changes during treatment. We used archival data of clinical trials for the treatment of PTSD in veterans to assess the construct validity of PCL-5-W. Both PCL-5-M and PCL-5-W were found to have configural measurement invariance across four consecutive administrations. The results also indicated at least partial metric and scalar invariance for each version. The reliability estimates of PCL-5-M and PCL-5-W at each time point were equivalent. However, we found a discrepancy with regard to concurrent validity; correlations with the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire may be meaningfully different between PCL-5-M and PCL-5-W. Nevertheless, overall, the results suggest that PCL-5-W can be validly used to assess PTSD symptoms over time, but factor scores may need to be tracked alongside total scores to address validity concerns.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Assessment
Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
2.60%
发文量
86
期刊介绍: Assessment publishes articles in the domain of applied clinical assessment. The emphasis of this journal is on publication of information of relevance to the use of assessment measures, including test development, validation, and interpretation practices. The scope of the journal includes research that can inform assessment practices in mental health, forensic, medical, and other applied settings. Papers that focus on the assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological functioning, personality, and psychopathology are invited. Most papers published in Assessment report the results of original empirical research, however integrative review articles and scholarly case studies will also be considered.
×
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