Latent Factor Structure of DSM-5 Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.

Emily Gentes, Paul A Dennis, Nathan A Kimbrel, Angela C Kirby, Lauren P Hair, Jean C Beckham, Patrick S Calhoun
{"title":"Latent Factor Structure of <i>DSM-5</i> Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.","authors":"Emily Gentes, Paul A Dennis, Nathan A Kimbrel, Angela C Kirby, Lauren P Hair, Jean C Beckham, Patrick S Calhoun","doi":"10.5127/pr.035914","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The current study examined the latent factor structure of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) based on <i>DSM-5</i> criteria in a sample of participants (<i>N</i> = 374) recruited for studies on trauma and health. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were used to compare the fit of the previous 3-factor <i>DSM-IV</i> model of PTSD to the 4-factor model specified in <i>DSM-5</i> as well as to a competing 4-factor \"dysphoria\" model (Simms, Watson, & Doebbeling, 2002) and a 5-factor (Elhai et al., 2011) model of PTSD. Results indicated that the Elhai 5-factor model (re-experiencing, active avoidance, emotional numbing, dysphoric arousal, anxious arousal) provided the best fit to the data, although substantial support was demonstrated for the <i>DSM-5</i> 4-factor model. Low factor loadings were noted for two of the symptoms in the <i>DSM-5</i> model (psychogenic amnesia and reckless/self-destructive behavior), which raises questions regarding the adequacy of fit of these symptoms with other core features of the disorder. Overall, the findings from the present research suggest the <i>DSM-5</i> model of PTSD is a significant improvement over the previous <i>DSM-IV</i> model of PTSD.</p>","PeriodicalId":90957,"journal":{"name":"Psychopathology review","volume":"2 1","pages":"17-29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4563872/pdf/nihms718790.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychopathology review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5127/pr.035914","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The current study examined the latent factor structure of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) based on DSM-5 criteria in a sample of participants (N = 374) recruited for studies on trauma and health. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were used to compare the fit of the previous 3-factor DSM-IV model of PTSD to the 4-factor model specified in DSM-5 as well as to a competing 4-factor "dysphoria" model (Simms, Watson, & Doebbeling, 2002) and a 5-factor (Elhai et al., 2011) model of PTSD. Results indicated that the Elhai 5-factor model (re-experiencing, active avoidance, emotional numbing, dysphoric arousal, anxious arousal) provided the best fit to the data, although substantial support was demonstrated for the DSM-5 4-factor model. Low factor loadings were noted for two of the symptoms in the DSM-5 model (psychogenic amnesia and reckless/self-destructive behavior), which raises questions regarding the adequacy of fit of these symptoms with other core features of the disorder. Overall, the findings from the present research suggest the DSM-5 model of PTSD is a significant improvement over the previous DSM-IV model of PTSD.

Abstract Image

DSM-5 创伤后应激障碍的潜因结构。
本研究根据 DSM-5 标准,对创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)的潜在因素结构进行了研究,研究对象是为创伤与健康研究而招募的参与者样本(N = 374)。我们使用了确证因子分析(CFA)来比较 PTSD 先前的 3 因子 DSM-IV 模型与 DSM-5 中规定的 4 因子模型的拟合程度,以及与竞争性 4 因子 "焦虑症 "模型(Simms、Watson 和 Doebbeling,2002 年)和 PTSD 的 5 因子模型(Elhai 等人,2011 年)的拟合程度。结果表明,Elhai 5 因子模型(重新体验、主动回避、情感麻木、焦虑唤醒、焦虑唤醒)与数据的拟合度最高,尽管 DSM-5 4 因子模型也得到了大量支持。在 DSM-5 模型中,有两个症状(精神性健忘症和鲁莽/自毁行为)的因子负荷较低,这让人怀疑这些症状与该障碍的其他核心特征是否匹配。总体而言,本研究的结果表明,DSM-5 模型中的创伤后应激障碍比之前 DSM-IV 模型中的创伤后应激障碍有了显著改善。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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