评估潜在创伤后应激障碍严重程度的经验阈值的差异症状加权:迈向诊断的“白金”标准?

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research Pub Date : 2023-02-15 DOI:10.1002/mpr.1963
Antonio A. Morgan-López, Lissette M. Saavedra, Denise A. Hien, Sonya B. Norman, Skye S. Fitzpatrick, Ai Ye, Therese K. Killeen, Lesia M. Ruglass, Shannon M. Blakey, Sudie E. Back
{"title":"评估潜在创伤后应激障碍严重程度的经验阈值的差异症状加权:迈向诊断的“白金”标准?","authors":"Antonio A. Morgan-López,&nbsp;Lissette M. Saavedra,&nbsp;Denise A. Hien,&nbsp;Sonya B. Norman,&nbsp;Skye S. Fitzpatrick,&nbsp;Ai Ye,&nbsp;Therese K. Killeen,&nbsp;Lesia M. Ruglass,&nbsp;Shannon M. Blakey,&nbsp;Sudie E. Back","doi":"10.1002/mpr.1963","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>Symptom counts as the basis for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) diagnoses in the DSM presume each symptom is equally reflective of underlying disorder severity. However, the “equal weight” assumption fails to fit PTSD symptom data when tested. The present study developed an enhanced PTSD diagnosis based on (a) a conventional PTSD diagnosis from a clinical interview and (b) an empirical classification of full PTSD that reflected the relative clinical weights of each symptom.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>Baseline structured interview data from Project Harmony (<i>N</i> = 2658) was used. An enhanced diagnosis for full PTSD was estimated using an empirical threshold from moderated nonlinear factor analysis (MNLFA) latent PTSD scale scores, in combination with a full conventional PTSD diagnosis based on interview data.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>One in 4 patients in the sample had a PTSD diagnosis that was inconsistent with their empirical PTSD grouping, such that the enhanced diagnostic standard reduced the diagnostic discrepancy rate by 20%. Veterans, and in particular female Veterans, were at greatest odds for discrepancy between their underlying PTSD severity and DSM diagnosis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Psychometric methodologies that differentially weight symptoms can complement DSM criteria and may serve as a platform for symptom prioritization for diagnoses in future editions of DSM.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50310,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research","volume":"32 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3a/ce/MPR-32-e1963.PMC10485310.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differential symptom weighting in estimating empirical thresholds for underlying PTSD severity: Toward a “platinum” standard for diagnosis?\",\"authors\":\"Antonio A. Morgan-López,&nbsp;Lissette M. Saavedra,&nbsp;Denise A. Hien,&nbsp;Sonya B. Norman,&nbsp;Skye S. Fitzpatrick,&nbsp;Ai Ye,&nbsp;Therese K. Killeen,&nbsp;Lesia M. Ruglass,&nbsp;Shannon M. Blakey,&nbsp;Sudie E. Back\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/mpr.1963\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>Symptom counts as the basis for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) diagnoses in the DSM presume each symptom is equally reflective of underlying disorder severity. However, the “equal weight” assumption fails to fit PTSD symptom data when tested. The present study developed an enhanced PTSD diagnosis based on (a) a conventional PTSD diagnosis from a clinical interview and (b) an empirical classification of full PTSD that reflected the relative clinical weights of each symptom.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Method</h3>\\n \\n <p>Baseline structured interview data from Project Harmony (<i>N</i> = 2658) was used. An enhanced diagnosis for full PTSD was estimated using an empirical threshold from moderated nonlinear factor analysis (MNLFA) latent PTSD scale scores, in combination with a full conventional PTSD diagnosis based on interview data.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>One in 4 patients in the sample had a PTSD diagnosis that was inconsistent with their empirical PTSD grouping, such that the enhanced diagnostic standard reduced the diagnostic discrepancy rate by 20%. Veterans, and in particular female Veterans, were at greatest odds for discrepancy between their underlying PTSD severity and DSM diagnosis.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Psychometric methodologies that differentially weight symptoms can complement DSM criteria and may serve as a platform for symptom prioritization for diagnoses in future editions of DSM.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50310,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research\",\"volume\":\"32 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3a/ce/MPR-32-e1963.PMC10485310.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mpr.1963\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mpr.1963","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

客观症状作为DSM中创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)诊断的基础,假设每种症状都同样反映了潜在障碍的严重程度。然而,“同等权重”假设在测试时不符合PTSD症状数据。本研究基于(a)来自临床访谈的常规PTSD诊断和(b)反映每种症状的相对临床权重的完整PTSD的经验分类,开发了一种增强的PTSD诊断。方法采用Harmony项目的基线结构化访谈数据(N = 2658)。利用调节非线性因子分析(MNLFA)潜在PTSD量表得分的经验阈值,结合基于访谈数据的完全常规PTSD诊断,估计增强诊断为完全PTSD。结果样本中每4例患者中就有1例的PTSD诊断与其经验PTSD分组不一致,提高后的诊断标准使诊断差异率降低了20%。退伍军人,尤其是女性退伍军人,其潜在的创伤后应激障碍严重程度与DSM诊断之间的差异最大。结论不同体重症状的心理测量方法可作为DSM标准的补充,并可作为未来DSM版本中诊断症状优先级的平台。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Differential symptom weighting in estimating empirical thresholds for underlying PTSD severity: Toward a “platinum” standard for diagnosis?

Objective

Symptom counts as the basis for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) diagnoses in the DSM presume each symptom is equally reflective of underlying disorder severity. However, the “equal weight” assumption fails to fit PTSD symptom data when tested. The present study developed an enhanced PTSD diagnosis based on (a) a conventional PTSD diagnosis from a clinical interview and (b) an empirical classification of full PTSD that reflected the relative clinical weights of each symptom.

Method

Baseline structured interview data from Project Harmony (N = 2658) was used. An enhanced diagnosis for full PTSD was estimated using an empirical threshold from moderated nonlinear factor analysis (MNLFA) latent PTSD scale scores, in combination with a full conventional PTSD diagnosis based on interview data.

Results

One in 4 patients in the sample had a PTSD diagnosis that was inconsistent with their empirical PTSD grouping, such that the enhanced diagnostic standard reduced the diagnostic discrepancy rate by 20%. Veterans, and in particular female Veterans, were at greatest odds for discrepancy between their underlying PTSD severity and DSM diagnosis.

Conclusion

Psychometric methodologies that differentially weight symptoms can complement DSM criteria and may serve as a platform for symptom prioritization for diagnoses in future editions of DSM.

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
5.20
自引率
6.50%
发文量
48
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research (MPR) publishes high-standard original research of a technical, methodological, experimental and clinical nature, contributing to the theory, methodology, practice and evaluation of mental and behavioural disorders. The journal targets in particular detailed methodological and design papers from major national and international multicentre studies. There is a close working relationship with the US National Institute of Mental Health, the World Health Organisation (WHO) Diagnostic Instruments Committees, as well as several other European and international organisations. MPR aims to publish rapidly articles of highest methodological quality in such areas as epidemiology, biostatistics, generics, psychopharmacology, psychology and the neurosciences. Articles informing about innovative and critical methodological, statistical and clinical issues, including nosology, can be submitted as regular papers and brief reports. Reviews are only occasionally accepted. MPR seeks to monitor, discuss, influence and improve the standards of mental health and behavioral neuroscience research by providing a platform for rapid publication of outstanding contributions. As a quarterly journal MPR is a major source of information and ideas and is an important medium for students, clinicians and researchers in psychiatry, clinical psychology, epidemiology and the allied disciplines in the mental health field.
期刊最新文献
Introducing the “IJMPR Didactic Papers” Network analysis: An overview for mental health research Are there subgroup differences in the accuracy of ‘screening’ questions for mood and anxiety disorder diagnostic interviews? A prediction model for differential resilience to the effects of combat-related stressors in US army soldiers A control theoretic approach to evaluate and inform ecological momentary interventions
×
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