DSM-5创伤后应激障碍检查表(PCL-5)对成人物质使用障碍的心理计量学验证。

IF 2.7 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Brian M Bird, Mary Jean Costello, Radia Taisir, Emily Levitt, Emily M Britton, Shannon Remers, Brian Rush, Sherry H Stewart, James MacKillop
{"title":"DSM-5创伤后应激障碍检查表(PCL-5)对成人物质使用障碍的心理计量学验证。","authors":"Brian M Bird, Mary Jean Costello, Radia Taisir, Emily Levitt, Emily M Britton, Shannon Remers, Brian Rush, Sherry H Stewart, James MacKillop","doi":"10.1037/tra0001874","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Checklist for the <i>Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition</i> (PCL-5) is one of the most widely used instruments in clinical practice, but there remain ongoing debates about its factor structure. Further, no study to date has undertaken psychometric validation of the PCL-5 among individuals seeking treatment for substance use disorder (SUD), a population for whom PTSD is highly concurrent and relevant to clinical care. The present study sought to examine three PTSD structural models and measurement invariance across sex and age in patients with SUD.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The sample consisted of adults (<i>N</i> = 1,222; <i>M</i><sub>age</sub> = 41.17; 71.03% male) who completed the PCL-5 at admission to inpatient treatment for SUD. Confirmatory factor analysis and tests of measurement invariance (age, sex) were conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that previously observed six-factor anhedonia and seven-factor hybrid models provided superior fit over the original four-factor model of PTSD, with optimal results found for the hybrid model. Configural, metric, and scalar measurement invariance for the six- and seven-factor models were observed for sex (males vs. females) and age (median split: < 41 vs. ≥ 41).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Collectively, this study adds to growing evidence in support of a seven-factor model and validates the use of the PCL-5 in adult SUD treatment populations. Limitations of some of the alternative structures and priorities for future research on the overlap of PTSD and SUD are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20982,"journal":{"name":"Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychometric validation of the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) in adults with substance use disorders.\",\"authors\":\"Brian M Bird, Mary Jean Costello, Radia Taisir, Emily Levitt, Emily M Britton, Shannon Remers, Brian Rush, Sherry H Stewart, James MacKillop\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/tra0001874\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Checklist for the <i>Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition</i> (PCL-5) is one of the most widely used instruments in clinical practice, but there remain ongoing debates about its factor structure. Further, no study to date has undertaken psychometric validation of the PCL-5 among individuals seeking treatment for substance use disorder (SUD), a population for whom PTSD is highly concurrent and relevant to clinical care. The present study sought to examine three PTSD structural models and measurement invariance across sex and age in patients with SUD.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The sample consisted of adults (<i>N</i> = 1,222; <i>M</i><sub>age</sub> = 41.17; 71.03% male) who completed the PCL-5 at admission to inpatient treatment for SUD. Confirmatory factor analysis and tests of measurement invariance (age, sex) were conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that previously observed six-factor anhedonia and seven-factor hybrid models provided superior fit over the original four-factor model of PTSD, with optimal results found for the hybrid model. Configural, metric, and scalar measurement invariance for the six- and seven-factor models were observed for sex (males vs. females) and age (median split: < 41 vs. ≥ 41).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Collectively, this study adds to growing evidence in support of a seven-factor model and validates the use of the PCL-5 in adult SUD treatment populations. Limitations of some of the alternative structures and priorities for future research on the overlap of PTSD and SUD are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20982,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001874\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001874","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:第五版《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》(PCL-5)创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)检查表是临床应用最广泛的检查工具之一,但其因素结构仍存在争议。此外,到目前为止,还没有研究对寻求药物使用障碍(SUD)治疗的个体的PCL-5进行心理测量验证,而PTSD对这一人群来说是高度并发的,与临床护理相关。本研究旨在检验三种创伤后应激障碍的结构模型,以及不同性别和年龄的PTSD患者的测量不变性。方法:调查对象为成人(N = 1,222;法师= 41.17;71.03%男性)在入院接受SUD住院治疗时完成PCL-5。进行验证性因素分析和测量不变性检验(年龄、性别)。结果:验证性因子分析显示,先前观察到的六因素快感缺乏和七因素混合模型比原始的四因素PTSD模型具有更好的拟合性,混合模型结果最优。在性别(男性vs.女性)和年龄(中位数分裂:< 41 vs.≥41)方面,观察到六因子和七因子模型的结构、度量和标量测量不变性。结论:总的来说,本研究增加了越来越多的证据来支持七因素模型,并验证了PCL-5在成人SUD治疗人群中的使用。讨论了PTSD和SUD重叠的一些替代结构的局限性和未来研究的重点。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Psychometric validation of the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) in adults with substance use disorders.

Objective: The Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Checklist for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (PCL-5) is one of the most widely used instruments in clinical practice, but there remain ongoing debates about its factor structure. Further, no study to date has undertaken psychometric validation of the PCL-5 among individuals seeking treatment for substance use disorder (SUD), a population for whom PTSD is highly concurrent and relevant to clinical care. The present study sought to examine three PTSD structural models and measurement invariance across sex and age in patients with SUD.

Method: The sample consisted of adults (N = 1,222; Mage = 41.17; 71.03% male) who completed the PCL-5 at admission to inpatient treatment for SUD. Confirmatory factor analysis and tests of measurement invariance (age, sex) were conducted.

Results: Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that previously observed six-factor anhedonia and seven-factor hybrid models provided superior fit over the original four-factor model of PTSD, with optimal results found for the hybrid model. Configural, metric, and scalar measurement invariance for the six- and seven-factor models were observed for sex (males vs. females) and age (median split: < 41 vs. ≥ 41).

Conclusion: Collectively, this study adds to growing evidence in support of a seven-factor model and validates the use of the PCL-5 in adult SUD treatment populations. Limitations of some of the alternative structures and priorities for future research on the overlap of PTSD and SUD are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

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
11.20
自引率
3.20%
发文量
427
期刊介绍: Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy publishes empirical research on the psychological effects of trauma. The journal is intended to be a forum for an interdisciplinary discussion on trauma, blending science, theory, practice, and policy. The journal publishes empirical research on a wide range of trauma-related topics, including: -Psychological treatments and effects -Promotion of education about effects of and treatment for trauma -Assessment and diagnosis of trauma -Pathophysiology of trauma reactions -Health services (delivery of services to trauma populations) -Epidemiological studies and risk factor studies -Neuroimaging studies -Trauma and cultural competence
×
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