探索 PCL-5 症状有效性指数,以检测夸大和假装的创伤后应激障碍。

IF 1.8 4区 心理学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Ryan W Schroeder, Rachel K Bieu
{"title":"探索 PCL-5 症状有效性指数,以检测夸大和假装的创伤后应激障碍。","authors":"Ryan W Schroeder, Rachel K Bieu","doi":"10.1080/13803395.2024.2314728","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>There are very few symptom validity indices directly examining overreported posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptomatology, and, until recently, there were no symptom validity indices embedded within the PTSD Checklist for the DSM-5 (PCL-5), which is one of the most commonly used PTSD measures. Given this, the current study sought to develop and cross-validate symptom validity indices for the PCL-5.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Multiple criterion groups comprised of Veteran patients were utilized (<i>N</i> = 210). Patients were determined to be valid or invalid responders based on Personality Asessment Inventory symptom validity indices. Three PCL-5 symptom validity indices were then examined: the PCL-5 Symptom Severity scale (PSS), the PCL-5 Extreme Symptom scale (PES), and the PCL-5 Rare Items scale (PRI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Area under the curve statistics ranged from .78 to .85. The PSS and PES both met classification accuracy statistic goals, with the PES achieving the highest sensitivity rate (.39) when maintaining specificity at .90 or above across all criterion groups. When an ad hoc analysis was performed, which included only patients with exceptionally strong evidence of invalidity, sensitivity rates increased to .60 for the PES while maintaining specificity at .90.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings provide preliminary support for new PTSD symptom validity indices embedded within one of the most frequently used PTSD measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":15382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploration of PCL-5 symptom validity indices for detection of exaggerated and feigned PTSD.\",\"authors\":\"Ryan W Schroeder, Rachel K Bieu\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13803395.2024.2314728\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>There are very few symptom validity indices directly examining overreported posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptomatology, and, until recently, there were no symptom validity indices embedded within the PTSD Checklist for the DSM-5 (PCL-5), which is one of the most commonly used PTSD measures. Given this, the current study sought to develop and cross-validate symptom validity indices for the PCL-5.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Multiple criterion groups comprised of Veteran patients were utilized (<i>N</i> = 210). Patients were determined to be valid or invalid responders based on Personality Asessment Inventory symptom validity indices. Three PCL-5 symptom validity indices were then examined: the PCL-5 Symptom Severity scale (PSS), the PCL-5 Extreme Symptom scale (PES), and the PCL-5 Rare Items scale (PRI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Area under the curve statistics ranged from .78 to .85. The PSS and PES both met classification accuracy statistic goals, with the PES achieving the highest sensitivity rate (.39) when maintaining specificity at .90 or above across all criterion groups. When an ad hoc analysis was performed, which included only patients with exceptionally strong evidence of invalidity, sensitivity rates increased to .60 for the PES while maintaining specificity at .90.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings provide preliminary support for new PTSD symptom validity indices embedded within one of the most frequently used PTSD measures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15382,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2024.2314728\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2024.2314728","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:很少有症状有效性指数可以直接检测过度报告的创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)症状,而且直到最近,DSM-5创伤后应激障碍核对表(PCL-5)中也没有嵌入症状有效性指数,而PCL-5是最常用的创伤后应激障碍测量方法之一。有鉴于此,本研究试图开发并交叉验证 PCL-5 的症状有效性指数:方法:利用退伍军人患者组成的多重标准组(N = 210)。方法:利用由退伍军人患者组成的多标准组(N = 210),根据人格评估量表症状有效性指数确定患者为有效或无效应答者。然后检查了三个 PCL-5 症状有效性指数:PCL-5 症状严重程度量表(PSS)、PCL-5 极端症状量表(PES)和 PCL-5 罕见项目量表(PRI):结果:曲线下面积统计范围为 0.78 至 0.85。PSS 和 PES 均达到了分类准确性统计目标,其中 PES 在所有标准组中的特异性保持在 0.90 或以上时,灵敏度最高(0.39)。在进行特别分析时,只包括有特别有力的无效证据的患者,PES 的灵敏度上升到 0.60,而特异性保持在 0.90:这些研究结果为在最常用的创伤后应激障碍测量方法中嵌入新的创伤后应激障碍症状有效性指数提供了初步支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploration of PCL-5 symptom validity indices for detection of exaggerated and feigned PTSD.

Introduction: There are very few symptom validity indices directly examining overreported posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptomatology, and, until recently, there were no symptom validity indices embedded within the PTSD Checklist for the DSM-5 (PCL-5), which is one of the most commonly used PTSD measures. Given this, the current study sought to develop and cross-validate symptom validity indices for the PCL-5.

Method: Multiple criterion groups comprised of Veteran patients were utilized (N = 210). Patients were determined to be valid or invalid responders based on Personality Asessment Inventory symptom validity indices. Three PCL-5 symptom validity indices were then examined: the PCL-5 Symptom Severity scale (PSS), the PCL-5 Extreme Symptom scale (PES), and the PCL-5 Rare Items scale (PRI).

Results: Area under the curve statistics ranged from .78 to .85. The PSS and PES both met classification accuracy statistic goals, with the PES achieving the highest sensitivity rate (.39) when maintaining specificity at .90 or above across all criterion groups. When an ad hoc analysis was performed, which included only patients with exceptionally strong evidence of invalidity, sensitivity rates increased to .60 for the PES while maintaining specificity at .90.

Conclusions: These findings provide preliminary support for new PTSD symptom validity indices embedded within one of the most frequently used PTSD measures.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
52
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology ( JCEN) publishes research on the neuropsychological consequences of brain disease, disorders, and dysfunction, and aims to promote the integration of theories, methods, and research findings in clinical and experimental neuropsychology. The primary emphasis of JCEN is to publish original empirical research pertaining to brain-behavior relationships and neuropsychological manifestations of brain disease. Theoretical and methodological papers, critical reviews of content areas, and theoretically-relevant case studies are also welcome.
×
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