在创伤性脑损伤样本中应用创伤后应激障碍核对表-平民和创伤后应激障碍核对表 DSM-5 交叉路:退伍军人事务脑外伤模型系统研究。

IF 3.3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Psychological Assessment Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1037/pas0001315
Hannah N Wyant, Marc A Silva, Stephanie Agtarap, Farina A Klocksieben, Teagen Smith, Risa Nakase-Richardson, Shannon R Miles
{"title":"在创伤性脑损伤样本中应用创伤后应激障碍核对表-平民和创伤后应激障碍核对表 DSM-5 交叉路:退伍军人事务脑外伤模型系统研究。","authors":"Hannah N Wyant, Marc A Silva, Stephanie Agtarap, Farina A Klocksieben, Teagen Smith, Risa Nakase-Richardson, Shannon R Miles","doi":"10.1037/pas0001315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study evaluates the use of the crosswalk between the PTSD Checklist-Civilian (PCL-C) and PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) designed by Moshier et al. (2019) in a sample of service members and veterans (SM/V; N = 298) who had sustained a traumatic brain injury (TBI) and were receiving inpatient rehabilitation. The PCL-C and PCL-5 were completed at the same time. Predicted PCL-5 scores for the sample were obtained according to the crosswalk developed by Moshier et al. We used three measures of agreement: intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), mean difference between predicted and observed scores, and Cohen's κ to determine the performance of the crosswalk in this sample. Subgroups relevant to those who have sustained a TBI, such as TBI severity, were also examined. There was strong agreement between the predicted and observed PCL-5 scores (ICC = .95). The overall mean difference between predicted and observed PCL-5 scores was 0.07 and not statistically significant (SD = 8.29, p = .89). Significant mean differences between predicted and observed PCL-5 scores calculated between subgroups were seen in Black participants (MD = -4.09, SD = 8.41, p = .01) and those in the Year 5 follow-up group (MD = 1.77, SD = 7.14, p = .03). Cohen's κ across subgroups had a mean of κ = 0.76 (.57-1.0), suggesting that there was moderate to almost perfect diagnostic agreement. Our results suggest the crosswalk created by Moshier et al. can be applied to SM/V who have suffered a TBI. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20770,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Assessment","volume":"36 6-7","pages":"425-432"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Applying the PTSD Checklist-Civilian and PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 crosswalk in a traumatic brain injury sample: A veterans affairs traumatic brain injury model systems study.\",\"authors\":\"Hannah N Wyant, Marc A Silva, Stephanie Agtarap, Farina A Klocksieben, Teagen Smith, Risa Nakase-Richardson, Shannon R Miles\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/pas0001315\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study evaluates the use of the crosswalk between the PTSD Checklist-Civilian (PCL-C) and PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) designed by Moshier et al. (2019) in a sample of service members and veterans (SM/V; N = 298) who had sustained a traumatic brain injury (TBI) and were receiving inpatient rehabilitation. The PCL-C and PCL-5 were completed at the same time. Predicted PCL-5 scores for the sample were obtained according to the crosswalk developed by Moshier et al. We used three measures of agreement: intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), mean difference between predicted and observed scores, and Cohen's κ to determine the performance of the crosswalk in this sample. Subgroups relevant to those who have sustained a TBI, such as TBI severity, were also examined. There was strong agreement between the predicted and observed PCL-5 scores (ICC = .95). The overall mean difference between predicted and observed PCL-5 scores was 0.07 and not statistically significant (SD = 8.29, p = .89). Significant mean differences between predicted and observed PCL-5 scores calculated between subgroups were seen in Black participants (MD = -4.09, SD = 8.41, p = .01) and those in the Year 5 follow-up group (MD = 1.77, SD = 7.14, p = .03). Cohen's κ across subgroups had a mean of κ = 0.76 (.57-1.0), suggesting that there was moderate to almost perfect diagnostic agreement. Our results suggest the crosswalk created by Moshier et al. can be applied to SM/V who have suffered a TBI. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20770,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Assessment\",\"volume\":\"36 6-7\",\"pages\":\"425-432\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001315\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001315","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究评估了 Moshier 等人(2019 年)设计的创伤后应激障碍核对表-平民版(PCL-C)与 DSM-5 版创伤后应激障碍核对表(PCL-5)之间的对照表在遭受创伤性脑损伤(TBI)并正在接受住院康复治疗的军人和退伍军人(SM/V;N = 298)样本中的使用情况。他们同时完成了 PCL-C 和 PCL-5。我们使用了三种一致性测量方法:类内相关系数(ICC)、预测得分与观察得分之间的平均差以及 Cohen's κ 来确定交叉法在该样本中的表现。此外,还对与创伤性脑损伤患者相关的分组(如创伤性脑损伤严重程度)进行了研究。预测的 PCL-5 得分与观察到的 PCL-5 得分之间具有很高的一致性(ICC = .95)。预测和观察 PCL-5 分数之间的总体平均差异为 0.07,无统计学意义(SD = 8.29,P = .89)。黑人参与者(MD = -4.09,SD = 8.41,p = .01)和第五年随访组参与者(MD = 1.77,SD = 7.14,p = .03)的 PCL-5 预测分数和观察分数在亚组之间存在显著的平均差异。亚组间的 Cohen's κ 平均值为 κ = 0.76(.57-1.0),表明诊断结果具有中等至几乎完美的一致性。我们的研究结果表明,Moshier 等人创建的交叉路径可用于遭受创伤性脑损伤的 SM/V 患者。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Applying the PTSD Checklist-Civilian and PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 crosswalk in a traumatic brain injury sample: A veterans affairs traumatic brain injury model systems study.

This study evaluates the use of the crosswalk between the PTSD Checklist-Civilian (PCL-C) and PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) designed by Moshier et al. (2019) in a sample of service members and veterans (SM/V; N = 298) who had sustained a traumatic brain injury (TBI) and were receiving inpatient rehabilitation. The PCL-C and PCL-5 were completed at the same time. Predicted PCL-5 scores for the sample were obtained according to the crosswalk developed by Moshier et al. We used three measures of agreement: intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), mean difference between predicted and observed scores, and Cohen's κ to determine the performance of the crosswalk in this sample. Subgroups relevant to those who have sustained a TBI, such as TBI severity, were also examined. There was strong agreement between the predicted and observed PCL-5 scores (ICC = .95). The overall mean difference between predicted and observed PCL-5 scores was 0.07 and not statistically significant (SD = 8.29, p = .89). Significant mean differences between predicted and observed PCL-5 scores calculated between subgroups were seen in Black participants (MD = -4.09, SD = 8.41, p = .01) and those in the Year 5 follow-up group (MD = 1.77, SD = 7.14, p = .03). Cohen's κ across subgroups had a mean of κ = 0.76 (.57-1.0), suggesting that there was moderate to almost perfect diagnostic agreement. Our results suggest the crosswalk created by Moshier et al. can be applied to SM/V who have suffered a TBI. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

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
Psychological Assessment
Psychological Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
167
期刊介绍: Psychological Assessment is concerned mainly with empirical research on measurement and evaluation relevant to the broad field of clinical psychology. Submissions are welcome in the areas of assessment processes and methods. Included are - clinical judgment and the application of decision-making models - paradigms derived from basic psychological research in cognition, personality–social psychology, and biological psychology - development, validation, and application of assessment instruments, observational methods, and interviews
期刊最新文献
Development and validation of a method for deriving MMPI-3 scores from MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF item responses. Evaluation of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) Unlikely Virtues Scale in the detection of underreporting. Prospectively predicting violent and aggressive incidents in prison practice with the Risk Screener Violence (RS-V): Results from a multisite prison study. Development of the Food Addiction Symptom Inventory: The first clinical interview to assess ultra-processed food addiction. Does the Bayley-4 measure the same constructs across girls and boys and infants, toddlers, and preschoolers?
×
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