A Bifactor Evaluation of Self-Report and Clinician-Administered Measures of PTSD in Veterans.

IF 3.5 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Assessment Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-12 DOI:10.1177/10731911241229568
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":"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}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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。
DSM-5创伤后应激障碍核对表(PCL-5)和DSM-5临床医师管理创伤后应激障碍量表(CAPS-5)是两种应用最广泛、验证最充分的创伤后应激障碍测量方法,其总分和分量表得分与DSM-5创伤后应激障碍症状相对应。然而,关于这两种测量法在总分之外的子量表得分的效用的信息却很少。本研究使用退伍军人事务局(VA)创伤后应激障碍专科门诊的退伍军人样本(样本数 = 1,240),比较了建议的 DSM-5 四因素模型和两种测量方法的双因素模型。两个测量指标的相关因子和双因子模型的拟合度都在可接受范围内,因此被保留下来作进一步评估。双因子特定指数表明,这两种测量方法都表现出较强的一般因子,但低阶因子较弱。结构回归显示,大多数低阶因子在预测相关结果方面作用不大。尽管还需要进行更多的研究才能对 PCL-5 和 CAPS-5 子量表的效用做出明确的说明,但研究结果表明它们存在许多弱点。因此,在今后的研究中使用或解释子量表分数时应谨慎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Assessment
Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
2.60%
发文量
86
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.
期刊最新文献
The Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory: Psychometric Properties and Symptom Comparisons in Women With and Without Brain Injuries Due to Intimate Partner Violence. Measuring Process Factors of Fluid Reasoning Using Multidimensional Computerized Adaptive Testing. A Network Analysis of Digital Clock Drawing for Command and Copy Conditions. Assessing Between- and Within-Person Reliabilities of Items and Scale for Daily Procrastination: A Multilevel and Dynamic Approach. Development and Initial Validation of a Momentary Cannabis Craving Scale Within a Homogeneous Sample of U.S. Emerging Adults.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1