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.
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.