国际创伤问卷“临床检查”在PTSD和复杂PTSD测量中的应用检验。

IF 5.3 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Mark Shevlin, Philip Hyland, Chris R. Brewin, Marylene Cloitre, Thanos Karatzias, Enya Redican
{"title":"国际创伤问卷“临床检查”在PTSD和复杂PTSD测量中的应用检验。","authors":"Mark Shevlin,&nbsp;Philip Hyland,&nbsp;Chris R. Brewin,&nbsp;Marylene Cloitre,&nbsp;Thanos Karatzias,&nbsp;Enya Redican","doi":"10.1111/acps.13799","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The International Trauma Questionnaire (ITQ) is the most widely used measure of ICD-11 Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Complex PTSD (CPTSD). This self-report scale has been used to estimate prevalence rates of these disorders in general populations and clinical samples, but concerns abound that prevalence estimates derived from self-report measures are too high. To address this concern, we previously introduced the concept of adding “clinical checks” to self-report measures to ensure initial responses reflected the intended clinical meaning of the scale item. Here we provide a rationale for adding clinical checks to the ITQ, describe the process of developing them, and demonstrate their effect at the symptom, cluster, and disorder levels in a general population sample.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A team of researchers and clinicians, including those who developed the ITQ, developed clinical checks for all ITQ items. These were tested using data from a non-probability quota-based representative sample of adults from the United Kingdom (<i>N</i> = 975).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Use of clinical checks led to decreases in symptom endorsements ranging from 18.0% to 43.9%, and symptom cluster requirements from 19.1% to 35.9%. Disorder prevalence estimates without the clinical checks were 5.4% for PTSD and 9.5% for CPTSD. With the clinical checks, prevalence estimates dropped to 3.8% for PTSD (relative decrease = 29.6%) and 4.9% for CPTSD (relative decrease = 48.4%).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Clinical checks can be easily embedded into the ITQ and have a significant effect on prevalence estimates. We contextualize these results in relation to existing literature on population prevalence estimates derived from clinical interviews and discrepancies between clinical interviews and self-report measures.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":108,"journal":{"name":"Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica","volume":"152 1","pages":"49-59"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/acps.13799","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Testing the Use of “Clinical Checks” With the International Trauma Questionnaire to Measure PTSD and Complex PTSD\",\"authors\":\"Mark Shevlin,&nbsp;Philip Hyland,&nbsp;Chris R. Brewin,&nbsp;Marylene Cloitre,&nbsp;Thanos Karatzias,&nbsp;Enya Redican\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/acps.13799\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>The International Trauma Questionnaire (ITQ) is the most widely used measure of ICD-11 Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Complex PTSD (CPTSD). This self-report scale has been used to estimate prevalence rates of these disorders in general populations and clinical samples, but concerns abound that prevalence estimates derived from self-report measures are too high. To address this concern, we previously introduced the concept of adding “clinical checks” to self-report measures to ensure initial responses reflected the intended clinical meaning of the scale item. Here we provide a rationale for adding clinical checks to the ITQ, describe the process of developing them, and demonstrate their effect at the symptom, cluster, and disorder levels in a general population sample.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A team of researchers and clinicians, including those who developed the ITQ, developed clinical checks for all ITQ items. These were tested using data from a non-probability quota-based representative sample of adults from the United Kingdom (<i>N</i> = 975).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Use of clinical checks led to decreases in symptom endorsements ranging from 18.0% to 43.9%, and symptom cluster requirements from 19.1% to 35.9%. Disorder prevalence estimates without the clinical checks were 5.4% for PTSD and 9.5% for CPTSD. With the clinical checks, prevalence estimates dropped to 3.8% for PTSD (relative decrease = 29.6%) and 4.9% for CPTSD (relative decrease = 48.4%).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Clinical checks can be easily embedded into the ITQ and have a significant effect on prevalence estimates. We contextualize these results in relation to existing literature on population prevalence estimates derived from clinical interviews and discrepancies between clinical interviews and self-report measures.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":108,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica\",\"volume\":\"152 1\",\"pages\":\"49-59\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/acps.13799\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acps.13799\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acps.13799","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:国际创伤问卷(ITQ)是ICD-11中使用最广泛的创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)和复杂创伤后应激障碍(CPTSD)的测量方法。这种自我报告量表已被用于估计这些疾病在一般人群和临床样本中的患病率,但人们普遍担心,从自我报告测量中得出的患病率估计过高。为了解决这个问题,我们之前引入了在自我报告措施中添加“临床检查”的概念,以确保最初的反应反映了量表项目的预期临床意义。在这里,我们提供了将临床检查添加到ITQ的基本原理,描述了开发它们的过程,并演示了它们在一般人群样本中在症状、集群和疾病水平上的作用。方法:一组研究人员和临床医生,包括ITQ的开发人员,开发了所有ITQ项目的临床检查。使用来自英国的非概率配额代表性成人样本(N = 975)的数据对这些进行了测试。结果:临床检查的使用导致症状认知度下降18.0% ~ 43.9%,症状群要求下降19.1% ~ 35.9%。未经临床检查的障碍患病率估计PTSD为5.4%,CPTSD为9.5%。通过临床检查,PTSD的患病率估计下降到3.8%(相对下降= 29.6%),CPTSD的患病率估计下降到4.9%(相对下降= 48.4%)。结论:临床检查可以很容易地嵌入到ITQ中,并对患病率估计有显著影响。我们将这些结果与现有文献中有关临床访谈得出的人口患病率估计以及临床访谈与自我报告测量之间的差异的研究结果联系起来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Testing the Use of “Clinical Checks” With the International Trauma Questionnaire to Measure PTSD and Complex PTSD

Background

The International Trauma Questionnaire (ITQ) is the most widely used measure of ICD-11 Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Complex PTSD (CPTSD). This self-report scale has been used to estimate prevalence rates of these disorders in general populations and clinical samples, but concerns abound that prevalence estimates derived from self-report measures are too high. To address this concern, we previously introduced the concept of adding “clinical checks” to self-report measures to ensure initial responses reflected the intended clinical meaning of the scale item. Here we provide a rationale for adding clinical checks to the ITQ, describe the process of developing them, and demonstrate their effect at the symptom, cluster, and disorder levels in a general population sample.

Methods

A team of researchers and clinicians, including those who developed the ITQ, developed clinical checks for all ITQ items. These were tested using data from a non-probability quota-based representative sample of adults from the United Kingdom (N = 975).

Results

Use of clinical checks led to decreases in symptom endorsements ranging from 18.0% to 43.9%, and symptom cluster requirements from 19.1% to 35.9%. Disorder prevalence estimates without the clinical checks were 5.4% for PTSD and 9.5% for CPTSD. With the clinical checks, prevalence estimates dropped to 3.8% for PTSD (relative decrease = 29.6%) and 4.9% for CPTSD (relative decrease = 48.4%).

Conclusion

Clinical checks can be easily embedded into the ITQ and have a significant effect on prevalence estimates. We contextualize these results in relation to existing literature on population prevalence estimates derived from clinical interviews and discrepancies between clinical interviews and self-report 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
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
11.20
自引率
3.00%
发文量
135
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica acts as an international forum for the dissemination of information advancing the science and practice of psychiatry. In particular we focus on communicating frontline research to clinical psychiatrists and psychiatric researchers. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica has traditionally been and remains a journal focusing predominantly on clinical psychiatry, but translational psychiatry is a topic of growing importance to our readers. Therefore, the journal welcomes submission of manuscripts based on both clinical- and more translational (e.g. preclinical and epidemiological) research. When preparing manuscripts based on translational studies for submission to Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, the authors should place emphasis on the clinical significance of the research question and the findings. Manuscripts based solely on preclinical research (e.g. animal models) are normally not considered for publication in the Journal.
×
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