关于 CAPS-5 和 PCL-5 评分之间的一致性。

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY European Journal of Psychotraumatology Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-14 DOI:10.1080/20008066.2024.2407728
Daniel J Lee, Frank W Weathers, Michelle J Bovin, Brian P Marx
{"title":"关于 CAPS-5 和 PCL-5 评分之间的一致性。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

背景:正如本刊所报道的,Resick及其同事(2023年)调查了两种广泛使用的创伤后应激障碍测量方法得分之间的差异:DSM-5临床医师管理创伤后应激障碍量表(CAPS-5;Weathers等人,2013年)和DSM-5创伤后应激障碍核对表(PCL-5;Weathers等人,2013年),这两种方法分别是临床医师评分的结构化访谈和自我评分的问卷。作者利用四项针对现役军人和退伍军人的临床试验数据,重复了 PCL-5 评分高于 CAPS-5 评分这一共同发现。然后,他们对项目反应分布进行了研究,发现 PCL-5 的评分在所有五个选项中的分布更为均匀,而 CAPS-5 的具体分数则相对较少使用。他们得出结论认为,这一发现表明存在一个需要解决的问题,并提出了修改锚点和项目的建议,以改善两种测量方法之间的对应关系:结果很有参考价值,样本的性质和规模也非常适合这一重要的研究问题。然而,我们对这篇论文有一些担忧和意见:我们认为,作者在几个重要方面错误地描述了 CAPS-5 和 PCL-5,导致他们对研究结果以及 CAPS-5 和 PCL-5 之间关系的预期性质得出了一些错误的结论。鉴于这些问题对创伤应激领域至关重要,我们认为有必要解决这些问题,并提供另一种视角。
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
On the concordance between CAPS-5 and PCL-5 scores.

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.

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
7.60
自引率
12.00%
发文量
153
审稿时长
18 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Atrophy in the supramarginal gyrus associated with impaired cognitive inhibition in grieving Chinese Shidu parents Dynamic networks of complex posttraumatic stress disorder and depression among college students with childhood trauma: insights from cross-sectional and cross-lagged panel network analysis A novel intervention for acute stress reaction: exploring the feasibility of ReSTART among Norwegian soldiers Wellbeing and illbeing in women exposed to physical and sexual violence during peripregnancy: a population-based longitudinal study Childhood-related PTSD: the role of cognitions in EMDR and imagery rescripting
×
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