Amanda M Raines, Kate E Clauss, Dustin Seidler, Nicholas P Allan, Jon D Elhai, Jennifer J Vasterling, Joseph I Constans, Kelly P Maieritsch, C Laurel Franklin
{"title":"退伍军人创伤后应激障碍自我报告和临床医师管理测量的双因素评估。","authors":"Amanda M Raines, Kate E Clauss, Dustin Seidler, Nicholas P Allan, Jon D Elhai, Jennifer J Vasterling, Joseph I Constans, Kelly P Maieritsch, C Laurel Franklin","doi":"10.1177/10731911241229568","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The PTSD Checklist for <i>DSM-5</i> (PCL-5) and the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for <i>DSM-5</i> (CAPS-5) are two of the most widely used and well-validated PTSD measures providing total and subscale scores that correspond with <i>DSM-5</i> PTSD symptoms. However, there is little information about the utility of subscale scores above and beyond the total score for either measure. The current study compared the proposed <i>DSM-5</i> four-factor model to a bifactor model across both measures using a sample of veterans (<i>N</i> = 1,240) presenting to a Veterans Affairs (VA) PTSD specialty clinic. The correlated factors and bifactor models for both measures evidenced marginal-to-acceptable fit and were retained for further evaluation. Bifactor specific indices suggested that both measures exhibited a strong general factor but weak lower-order factors. Structural regressions revealed that most of the lower-order factors provided little utility in predicting relevant outcomes. Although additional research is needed to make definitive statements about the utility of PCL-5 and CAPS-5 subscales, study findings point to numerous weaknesses. As such, caution should be exercised when using or interpreting subscale scores in future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":8577,"journal":{"name":"Assessment","volume":" ","pages":"1674-1686"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Bifactor Evaluation of Self-Report and Clinician-Administered Measures of PTSD in Veterans.\",\"authors\":\"Amanda M Raines, Kate E Clauss, Dustin Seidler, Nicholas P Allan, Jon D Elhai, Jennifer J Vasterling, Joseph I Constans, Kelly P Maieritsch, C Laurel Franklin\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10731911241229568\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The PTSD Checklist for <i>DSM-5</i> (PCL-5) and the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for <i>DSM-5</i> (CAPS-5) are two of the most widely used and well-validated PTSD measures providing total and subscale scores that correspond with <i>DSM-5</i> PTSD symptoms. However, there is little information about the utility of subscale scores above and beyond the total score for either measure. The current study compared the proposed <i>DSM-5</i> four-factor model to a bifactor model across both measures using a sample of veterans (<i>N</i> = 1,240) presenting to a Veterans Affairs (VA) PTSD specialty clinic. The correlated factors and bifactor models for both measures evidenced marginal-to-acceptable fit and were retained for further evaluation. Bifactor specific indices suggested that both measures exhibited a strong general factor but weak lower-order factors. Structural regressions revealed that most of the lower-order factors provided little utility in predicting relevant outcomes. Although additional research is needed to make definitive statements about the utility of PCL-5 and CAPS-5 subscales, study findings point to numerous weaknesses. As such, caution should be exercised when using or interpreting subscale scores in future research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8577,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Assessment\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1674-1686\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911241229568\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911241229568","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Bifactor Evaluation of Self-Report and Clinician-Administered Measures of PTSD in Veterans.
The PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) and the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) are two of the most widely used and well-validated PTSD measures providing total and subscale scores that correspond with DSM-5 PTSD symptoms. However, there is little information about the utility of subscale scores above and beyond the total score for either measure. The current study compared the proposed DSM-5 four-factor model to a bifactor model across both measures using a sample of veterans (N = 1,240) presenting to a Veterans Affairs (VA) PTSD specialty clinic. The correlated factors and bifactor models for both measures evidenced marginal-to-acceptable fit and were retained for further evaluation. Bifactor specific indices suggested that both measures exhibited a strong general factor but weak lower-order factors. Structural regressions revealed that most of the lower-order factors provided little utility in predicting relevant outcomes. Although additional research is needed to make definitive statements about the utility of PCL-5 and CAPS-5 subscales, study findings point to numerous weaknesses. As such, caution should be exercised when using or interpreting subscale scores in future research.
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.