Amelie Pettrich, Michael Friedrich, Yuriy Nesterko, Heide Glaesmer
{"title":"德国 PCL-5:在大规模德国普通人群样本中评估结构有效性。","authors":"Amelie Pettrich, Michael Friedrich, Yuriy Nesterko, Heide Glaesmer","doi":"10.1080/20008066.2024.2317055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> In attempts to elucidate PTSD, recent factor analytic studies resulted in complex models with a proliferating number of factors that lack psychometrical and clinical utility. Recently, suggestions have been made to optimize factor analytic practices to meet a refined set of statistical and psychometric criteria.<b>Objective:</b> This study aims to assess the factorial structure of the German version of the PCL-5, implementing recent methodological advancements to address the risk of overfitting models. In doing so we diverge from traditional factor analytical research on PTSD.<b>Method:</b> On a large-scale sample of the German general population (<i>n</i> = 1625), exploratory factor analyses were run to investigate the dimensionality found within the data. Subsequently, we validated and compared all model suggestions from our preliminary analyses plus all standard and common alternative PTSD factor models (including the ICD-11 model) from previous literature with confirmatory factor analyses. We not only consider model fit indices based on WLSMV estimation but also deploy criteria such as favouring less complex models with a parsimonious number of factors, sufficient items per factor, low inter-factor correlations and number of model misspecifications.<b>Results:</b> All tested models showed adequate to excellent fit in respect to traditional model fit indices; however, models with two or more factors increasingly failed to meet other statistical and psychometric criteria.<b>Conclusion:</b> Based on the results we favour a two-factor bifactor model with a strong general PTSD factor and two less dominant specific factors - one factor with trauma-related symptoms (re-experiencing and avoidance) and one factor with global psychological symptoms (describing the trauma's higher-order impact on mood, cognition, behaviour and arousal).From the perspective of clinical utility, we recommend the cut-off scoring method for the German version of the PCL-5. Basic psychometric properties and scale characteristics are provided.</p>","PeriodicalId":12055,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychotraumatology","volume":"15 1","pages":"2317055"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10883083/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The German PCL-5: evaluating structural validity in a large-scale sample of the general German population.\",\"authors\":\"Amelie Pettrich, Michael Friedrich, Yuriy Nesterko, Heide Glaesmer\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20008066.2024.2317055\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> In attempts to elucidate PTSD, recent factor analytic studies resulted in complex models with a proliferating number of factors that lack psychometrical and clinical utility. Recently, suggestions have been made to optimize factor analytic practices to meet a refined set of statistical and psychometric criteria.<b>Objective:</b> This study aims to assess the factorial structure of the German version of the PCL-5, implementing recent methodological advancements to address the risk of overfitting models. In doing so we diverge from traditional factor analytical research on PTSD.<b>Method:</b> On a large-scale sample of the German general population (<i>n</i> = 1625), exploratory factor analyses were run to investigate the dimensionality found within the data. Subsequently, we validated and compared all model suggestions from our preliminary analyses plus all standard and common alternative PTSD factor models (including the ICD-11 model) from previous literature with confirmatory factor analyses. We not only consider model fit indices based on WLSMV estimation but also deploy criteria such as favouring less complex models with a parsimonious number of factors, sufficient items per factor, low inter-factor correlations and number of model misspecifications.<b>Results:</b> All tested models showed adequate to excellent fit in respect to traditional model fit indices; however, models with two or more factors increasingly failed to meet other statistical and psychometric criteria.<b>Conclusion:</b> Based on the results we favour a two-factor bifactor model with a strong general PTSD factor and two less dominant specific factors - one factor with trauma-related symptoms (re-experiencing and avoidance) and one factor with global psychological symptoms (describing the trauma's higher-order impact on mood, cognition, behaviour and arousal).From the perspective of clinical utility, we recommend the cut-off scoring method for the German version of the PCL-5. Basic psychometric properties and scale characteristics are provided.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12055,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Psychotraumatology\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"2317055\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10883083/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Psychotraumatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20008066.2024.2317055\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychotraumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20008066.2024.2317055","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The German PCL-5: evaluating structural validity in a large-scale sample of the general German population.
Background: In attempts to elucidate PTSD, recent factor analytic studies resulted in complex models with a proliferating number of factors that lack psychometrical and clinical utility. Recently, suggestions have been made to optimize factor analytic practices to meet a refined set of statistical and psychometric criteria.Objective: This study aims to assess the factorial structure of the German version of the PCL-5, implementing recent methodological advancements to address the risk of overfitting models. In doing so we diverge from traditional factor analytical research on PTSD.Method: On a large-scale sample of the German general population (n = 1625), exploratory factor analyses were run to investigate the dimensionality found within the data. Subsequently, we validated and compared all model suggestions from our preliminary analyses plus all standard and common alternative PTSD factor models (including the ICD-11 model) from previous literature with confirmatory factor analyses. We not only consider model fit indices based on WLSMV estimation but also deploy criteria such as favouring less complex models with a parsimonious number of factors, sufficient items per factor, low inter-factor correlations and number of model misspecifications.Results: All tested models showed adequate to excellent fit in respect to traditional model fit indices; however, models with two or more factors increasingly failed to meet other statistical and psychometric criteria.Conclusion: Based on the results we favour a two-factor bifactor model with a strong general PTSD factor and two less dominant specific factors - one factor with trauma-related symptoms (re-experiencing and avoidance) and one factor with global psychological symptoms (describing the trauma's higher-order impact on mood, cognition, behaviour and arousal).From the perspective of clinical utility, we recommend the cut-off scoring method for the German version of the PCL-5. Basic psychometric properties and scale characteristics are provided.
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.