Testing the Use of "Clinical Checks" With the International Trauma Questionnaire to Measure PTSD and Complex PTSD.

IF 5.3 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Mark Shevlin, Philip Hyland, Chris R Brewin, Marylene Cloitre, Thanos Karatzias, Enya Redican
{"title":"Testing the Use of \"Clinical Checks\" With the International Trauma Questionnaire to Measure PTSD and Complex PTSD.","authors":"Mark Shevlin, Philip Hyland, Chris R Brewin, Marylene Cloitre, Thanos Karatzias, Enya Redican","doi":"10.1111/acps.13799","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The International Trauma Questionnaire (ITQ) is the most widely used measure of ICD-11 Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Complex PTSD (CPTSD). This self-report scale has been used to estimate prevalence rates of these disorders in general populations and clinical samples, but concerns abound that prevalence estimates derived from self-report measures are too high. To address this concern, we previously introduced the concept of adding \"clinical checks\" to self-report measures to ensure initial responses reflected the intended clinical meaning of the scale item. Here we provide a rationale for adding clinical checks to the ITQ, describe the process of developing them, and demonstrate their effect at the symptom, cluster, and disorder levels in a general population sample.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A team of researchers and clinicians, including those who developed the ITQ, developed clinical checks for all ITQ items. These were tested using data from a non-probability quota-based representative sample of adults from the United Kingdom (N = 975).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Use of clinical checks led to decreases in symptom endorsements ranging from 18.0% to 43.9%, and symptom cluster requirements from 19.1% to 35.9%. Disorder prevalence estimates without the clinical checks were 5.4% for PTSD and 9.5% for CPTSD. With the clinical checks, prevalence estimates dropped to 3.8% for PTSD (relative decrease = 29.6%) and 4.9% for CPTSD (relative decrease = 48.4%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clinical checks can be easily embedded into the ITQ and have a significant effect on prevalence estimates. We contextualize these results in relation to existing literature on population prevalence estimates derived from clinical interviews and discrepancies between clinical interviews and self-report measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":108,"journal":{"name":"Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.13799","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The International Trauma Questionnaire (ITQ) is the most widely used measure of ICD-11 Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Complex PTSD (CPTSD). This self-report scale has been used to estimate prevalence rates of these disorders in general populations and clinical samples, but concerns abound that prevalence estimates derived from self-report measures are too high. To address this concern, we previously introduced the concept of adding "clinical checks" to self-report measures to ensure initial responses reflected the intended clinical meaning of the scale item. Here we provide a rationale for adding clinical checks to the ITQ, describe the process of developing them, and demonstrate their effect at the symptom, cluster, and disorder levels in a general population sample.

Methods: A team of researchers and clinicians, including those who developed the ITQ, developed clinical checks for all ITQ items. These were tested using data from a non-probability quota-based representative sample of adults from the United Kingdom (N = 975).

Results: Use of clinical checks led to decreases in symptom endorsements ranging from 18.0% to 43.9%, and symptom cluster requirements from 19.1% to 35.9%. Disorder prevalence estimates without the clinical checks were 5.4% for PTSD and 9.5% for CPTSD. With the clinical checks, prevalence estimates dropped to 3.8% for PTSD (relative decrease = 29.6%) and 4.9% for CPTSD (relative decrease = 48.4%).

Conclusion: Clinical checks can be easily embedded into the ITQ and have a significant effect on prevalence estimates. We contextualize these results in relation to existing literature on population prevalence estimates derived from clinical interviews and discrepancies between clinical interviews and self-report measures.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
11.20
自引率
3.00%
发文量
135
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica acts as an international forum for the dissemination of information advancing the science and practice of psychiatry. In particular we focus on communicating frontline research to clinical psychiatrists and psychiatric researchers. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica has traditionally been and remains a journal focusing predominantly on clinical psychiatry, but translational psychiatry is a topic of growing importance to our readers. Therefore, the journal welcomes submission of manuscripts based on both clinical- and more translational (e.g. preclinical and epidemiological) research. When preparing manuscripts based on translational studies for submission to Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, the authors should place emphasis on the clinical significance of the research question and the findings. Manuscripts based solely on preclinical research (e.g. animal models) are normally not considered for publication in the Journal.
×
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