Daniel J Lee, Frank W Weathers, Michelle J Bovin, Brian P Marx
{"title":"On the concordance between CAPS-5 and PCL-5 scores.","authors":"Daniel J Lee, Frank W Weathers, Michelle J Bovin, Brian P Marx","doi":"10.1080/20008066.2024.2407728","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> As reported in this journal, Resick and colleagues (2023) investigated discrepancies between scores from two widely used PTSD measures: the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5; Weathers et al., 2013) and the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5; Weathers et al., 2013), a clinician-rated structured interview and a self-rated questionnaire, respectively. Using data from four clinical trials of active-duty military personnel and veterans, the authors replicated the common finding that PCL-5 scores are higher than CAPS-5 scores. They then examined item response distributions, finding that ratings on the PCL-5 were more evenly distributed across all five options whereas specific CAPS-5 scores were used relatively infrequently. Concluding that this finding indicates a problem that should be addressed, they offered suggestions for revising anchors and items to improve correspondence between the two measures.<b>Objective:</b> The results are informative and the nature and size of the sample are well-suited to this important research question. However, we have a number of concerns and comments about this paper.<b>Conclusion:</b> In our view, the authors mischaracterized the CAPS-5 and PCL-5 in several important ways, resulting in some erroneous conclusions about their findings and the expected nature of the relationship between the CAPS-5 and PCL-5. Given that these issues are vital to the field of traumatic stress, we felt compelled to address them and provide an alternative perspective.</p>","PeriodicalId":12055,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychotraumatology","volume":"15 1","pages":"2407728"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11565655/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychotraumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20008066.2024.2407728","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: As reported in this journal, Resick and colleagues (2023) investigated discrepancies between scores from two widely used PTSD measures: the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5; Weathers et al., 2013) and the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5; Weathers et al., 2013), a clinician-rated structured interview and a self-rated questionnaire, respectively. Using data from four clinical trials of active-duty military personnel and veterans, the authors replicated the common finding that PCL-5 scores are higher than CAPS-5 scores. They then examined item response distributions, finding that ratings on the PCL-5 were more evenly distributed across all five options whereas specific CAPS-5 scores were used relatively infrequently. Concluding that this finding indicates a problem that should be addressed, they offered suggestions for revising anchors and items to improve correspondence between the two measures.Objective: The results are informative and the nature and size of the sample are well-suited to this important research question. However, we have a number of concerns and comments about this paper.Conclusion: In our view, the authors mischaracterized the CAPS-5 and PCL-5 in several important ways, resulting in some erroneous conclusions about their findings and the expected nature of the relationship between the CAPS-5 and PCL-5. Given that these issues are vital to the field of traumatic stress, we felt compelled to address them and provide an alternative perspective.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Psychotraumatology (EJPT) is a peer-reviewed open access interdisciplinary journal owned by the European Society of Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS). The European Journal of Psychotraumatology (EJPT) aims to engage scholars, clinicians and researchers in the vital issues of how to understand, prevent and treat the consequences of stress and trauma, including but not limited to, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depressive disorders, substance abuse, burnout, and neurobiological or physical consequences, using the latest research or clinical experience in these areas. The journal shares ESTSS’ mission to advance and disseminate scientific knowledge about traumatic stress. Papers may address individual events, repeated or chronic (complex) trauma, large scale disasters, or violence. Being open access, the European Journal of Psychotraumatology is also evidence of ESTSS’ stand on free accessibility of research publications to a wider community via the web. The European Journal of Psychotraumatology seeks to attract contributions from academics and practitioners from diverse professional backgrounds, including, but not restricted to, those in mental health, social sciences, and health and welfare services. Contributions from outside Europe are welcome. The journal welcomes original basic and clinical research articles that consolidate and expand the theoretical and professional basis of the field of traumatic stress; Review articles including meta-analyses; short communications presenting new ideas or early-stage promising research; study protocols that describe proposed or ongoing research; case reports examining a single individual or event in a real‑life context; clinical practice papers sharing experience from the clinic; letters to the Editor debating articles already published in the Journal; inaugural Lectures; conference abstracts and book reviews. Both quantitative and qualitative research is welcome.