DSM-5临床医师自制创伤后应激障碍量表(CAPS-5)的可靠性通用性评估:荟萃分析

Ajele Kenni Wojujutari, E. Idemudia, L. E. Ugwu
{"title":"DSM-5临床医师自制创伤后应激障碍量表(CAPS-5)的可靠性通用性评估:荟萃分析","authors":"Ajele Kenni Wojujutari, E. Idemudia, L. E. Ugwu","doi":"10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1354229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The CAPS-5 is a reliable instrument for assessing PTSD symptoms, demonstrating strong consistency, validity, and reliability after a traumatic event. However, further research is warranted to explore the divergent validity of the CAPS-5 and its adaptation to diverse cultural contexts.In this meta-analysis, we endeavoured to comprehensively evaluate the reliability generalization of the CAPS-5 across diverse populations and clinical contexts.A reliability generalization meta-analysis on the psychometric properties of CAPS-5 was conducted, encompassing 15 studies. The original versions’ psychometric properties were systematically retrieved from databases including PubMed, PsychNet, Medline, CHAHL, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, with a focus on studies published between 2013 and 2023. Two independent investigators evaluated study quality using QUADAS-2 and COSMIN RB, pre-registering the protocol in the Prospero database for transparency and minimizing bias risk.Meta-analysis reveals CAPS-5 global reliability (α = 0.92, 95% CI [0.90, 0.94]), z = 99.44, p < 0.05 across 15 studies, supporting consistent internal consistency. Subscale analysis shows variability in Reexperiencing (α = 0.82), Avoidance (α = 0.68), Cognition and Mood (α = 0.82), and Hyperarousal (α = 0.74), with an overall estimate of 0.77 (95% CI [0.70;0.83]). Language-dependent analysis highlights reliability variations (α range: 0.83 to 0.92) across Brazilian-Portuguese, Dutch, English, French, German, Korean, and Portuguese. Test–retest reliability demonstrates stability (r = 0.82, 95% CI [0.79; 0.85]), with overall convergent validity (r = 0.59, 95% CI [0.50;0.68]).The meta-analysis affirms CAPS-5’s robust global and subscale reliability across studies and languages, with stable test–retest results. Moderator analysis finds no significant impact, yet substantial residual heterogeneity remains unexplained. Our findings contribute intricate insights into the psychometric properties of this instrument, offering a more complete understanding of its utility in PTSD assessment.https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023483748.","PeriodicalId":507929,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Psychology","volume":"53 49","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The assessment of reliability generalisation of clinician-administered PTSD scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5): a meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Ajele Kenni Wojujutari, E. Idemudia, L. E. Ugwu\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1354229\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The CAPS-5 is a reliable instrument for assessing PTSD symptoms, demonstrating strong consistency, validity, and reliability after a traumatic event. However, further research is warranted to explore the divergent validity of the CAPS-5 and its adaptation to diverse cultural contexts.In this meta-analysis, we endeavoured to comprehensively evaluate the reliability generalization of the CAPS-5 across diverse populations and clinical contexts.A reliability generalization meta-analysis on the psychometric properties of CAPS-5 was conducted, encompassing 15 studies. The original versions’ psychometric properties were systematically retrieved from databases including PubMed, PsychNet, Medline, CHAHL, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, with a focus on studies published between 2013 and 2023. Two independent investigators evaluated study quality using QUADAS-2 and COSMIN RB, pre-registering the protocol in the Prospero database for transparency and minimizing bias risk.Meta-analysis reveals CAPS-5 global reliability (α = 0.92, 95% CI [0.90, 0.94]), z = 99.44, p < 0.05 across 15 studies, supporting consistent internal consistency. Subscale analysis shows variability in Reexperiencing (α = 0.82), Avoidance (α = 0.68), Cognition and Mood (α = 0.82), and Hyperarousal (α = 0.74), with an overall estimate of 0.77 (95% CI [0.70;0.83]). Language-dependent analysis highlights reliability variations (α range: 0.83 to 0.92) across Brazilian-Portuguese, Dutch, English, French, German, Korean, and Portuguese. Test–retest reliability demonstrates stability (r = 0.82, 95% CI [0.79; 0.85]), with overall convergent validity (r = 0.59, 95% CI [0.50;0.68]).The meta-analysis affirms CAPS-5’s robust global and subscale reliability across studies and languages, with stable test–retest results. Moderator analysis finds no significant impact, yet substantial residual heterogeneity remains unexplained. Our findings contribute intricate insights into the psychometric properties of this instrument, offering a more complete understanding of its utility in PTSD assessment.https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023483748.\",\"PeriodicalId\":507929,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Psychology\",\"volume\":\"53 49\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1354229\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1354229","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

CAPS-5是评估创伤后应激障碍症状的可靠工具,在创伤事件后表现出很强的一致性、有效性和可靠性。在这项荟萃分析中,我们致力于全面评估 CAPS-5 在不同人群和临床环境中的可靠性泛化。我们对 CAPS-5 的心理测量特性进行了可靠性泛化荟萃分析,共包括 15 项研究。研究人员从PubMed、PsychNet、Medline、CHAHL、ScienceDirect、Scopus、Web of Science和Google Scholar等数据库中系统地检索了原始版本的心理测量特性,重点关注2013年至2023年间发表的研究。两名独立调查人员使用 QUADAS-2 和 COSMIN RB 评估了研究质量,并在 Prospero 数据库中预先登记了研究方案,以提高透明度并最大限度地降低偏倚风险。Meta 分析显示,15 项研究的 CAPS-5 整体可靠性(α = 0.92,95% CI [0.90,0.94]),z = 99.44,p < 0.05,支持一致的内部一致性。分量表分析表明,再体验(α = 0.82)、回避(α = 0.68)、认知与情绪(α = 0.82)和过度焦虑(α = 0.74)存在差异,总体估计值为 0.77(95% CI [0.70;0.83])。语言依赖性分析显示了巴西-葡萄牙语、荷兰语、英语、法语、德语、韩语和葡萄牙语之间的可靠性差异(α 范围:0.83 至 0.92)。荟萃分析证实,CAPS-5 在不同研究和语言中的总体和分量表可靠性很强,测试-重测结果也很稳定。荟萃分析证实了 CAPS-5 在不同研究和语言中的总体和分量表可靠性很强,测试-再测结果稳定。调节分析没有发现明显的影响,但大量残余异质性仍未得到解释。我们的研究结果有助于深入了解该工具的心理测量特性,从而更全面地了解其在创伤后应激障碍评估中的实用性。https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023483748。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The assessment of reliability generalisation of clinician-administered PTSD scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5): a meta-analysis
The CAPS-5 is a reliable instrument for assessing PTSD symptoms, demonstrating strong consistency, validity, and reliability after a traumatic event. However, further research is warranted to explore the divergent validity of the CAPS-5 and its adaptation to diverse cultural contexts.In this meta-analysis, we endeavoured to comprehensively evaluate the reliability generalization of the CAPS-5 across diverse populations and clinical contexts.A reliability generalization meta-analysis on the psychometric properties of CAPS-5 was conducted, encompassing 15 studies. The original versions’ psychometric properties were systematically retrieved from databases including PubMed, PsychNet, Medline, CHAHL, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, with a focus on studies published between 2013 and 2023. Two independent investigators evaluated study quality using QUADAS-2 and COSMIN RB, pre-registering the protocol in the Prospero database for transparency and minimizing bias risk.Meta-analysis reveals CAPS-5 global reliability (α = 0.92, 95% CI [0.90, 0.94]), z = 99.44, p < 0.05 across 15 studies, supporting consistent internal consistency. Subscale analysis shows variability in Reexperiencing (α = 0.82), Avoidance (α = 0.68), Cognition and Mood (α = 0.82), and Hyperarousal (α = 0.74), with an overall estimate of 0.77 (95% CI [0.70;0.83]). Language-dependent analysis highlights reliability variations (α range: 0.83 to 0.92) across Brazilian-Portuguese, Dutch, English, French, German, Korean, and Portuguese. Test–retest reliability demonstrates stability (r = 0.82, 95% CI [0.79; 0.85]), with overall convergent validity (r = 0.59, 95% CI [0.50;0.68]).The meta-analysis affirms CAPS-5’s robust global and subscale reliability across studies and languages, with stable test–retest results. Moderator analysis finds no significant impact, yet substantial residual heterogeneity remains unexplained. Our findings contribute intricate insights into the psychometric properties of this instrument, offering a more complete understanding of its utility in PTSD assessment.https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023483748.
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
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