An Item Response Theory Analysis of the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 Among Veterans.

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
ACS Applied Electronic Materials Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-14 DOI:10.1177/10731911231202440
Daniel J Lee, Michael L Crowe, Frank W Weathers, Michelle J Bovin, Stephanie Ellickson, Denise M Sloan, Paula Schnurr, Terence M Keane, Brian P Marx
{"title":"An Item Response Theory Analysis of the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for <i>DSM-5</i> Among Veterans.","authors":"Daniel J Lee, Michael L Crowe, Frank W Weathers, Michelle J Bovin, Stephanie Ellickson, Denise M Sloan, Paula Schnurr, Terence M Keane, Brian P Marx","doi":"10.1177/10731911231202440","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We used item response theory (IRT) analysis to examine Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for <i>DSM-5</i> (CAPS-5) item performance using data from three large samples of veterans (total <i>N</i> = 808) using both binary and ordinal rating methods. Relative to binary ratings, ordinal ratings provided good coverage from well below to well above average within each symptom cluster. However, coverage varied by cluster, and item difficulties were unevenly distributed within each cluster, with numerous instances of redundancy. For both binary and ordinal scores, flashbacks, dissociative amnesia, and self-destructive behavior items showed a pattern of high difficulty but relatively poor discrimination. Results indicate that CAPS-5 ordinal ratings provide good severity coverage and that most items accurately differentiated between participants by severity. Observed uneven distribution and redundancy in item difficulty suggest there is opportunity to create an abbreviated version of the CAPS-5 for determining PTSD symptom severity, but not <i>DSM-5</i> PTSD diagnosis, without sacrificing precision.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911231202440","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We used item response theory (IRT) analysis to examine Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) item performance using data from three large samples of veterans (total N = 808) using both binary and ordinal rating methods. Relative to binary ratings, ordinal ratings provided good coverage from well below to well above average within each symptom cluster. However, coverage varied by cluster, and item difficulties were unevenly distributed within each cluster, with numerous instances of redundancy. For both binary and ordinal scores, flashbacks, dissociative amnesia, and self-destructive behavior items showed a pattern of high difficulty but relatively poor discrimination. Results indicate that CAPS-5 ordinal ratings provide good severity coverage and that most items accurately differentiated between participants by severity. Observed uneven distribution and redundancy in item difficulty suggest there is opportunity to create an abbreviated version of the CAPS-5 for determining PTSD symptom severity, but not DSM-5 PTSD diagnosis, without sacrificing precision.

DSM-5退伍军人PTSD临床管理量表的项目反应理论分析。
我们采用项目反应理论(IRT)分析,利用三个大样本退伍军人(总N = 808)的数据,采用二元和序数评分方法,对DSM-5 (CAPS-5)临床管理PTSD量表的项目表现进行检验。相对于二元评分,顺序评分在每个症状群中提供了从远低于平均水平到远高于平均水平的良好覆盖率。然而,覆盖范围因集群而异,项目困难在每个集群中分布不均,有许多冗余实例。在二元和序数得分中,闪回、解离性健忘症和自毁行为三项均表现出难度较高但辨别能力相对较差的模式。结果表明,CAPS-5顺序评分提供了良好的严重性覆盖,大多数项目准确地区分了参与者的严重性。观察到的不均匀分布和项目难度的冗余表明,在不牺牲准确性的情况下,有机会创建CAPS-5的简化版本来确定PTSD症状的严重程度,但不能创建DSM-5的简化版本来诊断PTSD。
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
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
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