4.2 Article

Validation of Abbreviated Four- and Eight-Item Versions of the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 in a Traumatically Injured Sample

Journal

JOURNAL OF TRAUMATIC STRESS
Volume 33, Issue 3, Pages 218-226

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jts.22478

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rates of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are three times higher in traumatically injured populations than the general population, yet limited brief, valid measures for assessing PTSD symptom severity exist. The PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) is a valid, efficient measure of symptom severity, but its completion is time consuming. Subsequently, abbreviated four- and eight-item versions were developed using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview-7 PTSD module and validated in Veteran samples. This study aimed to validate these abbreviated versions using the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5), the gold standard for PTSD diagnosis, in a traumatically injured civilian population. Participants were 251 traumatically injured adults (M-age = 42.52 years; 69.3% male; 50.2% Caucasian) recruited from a Level 1 trauma center inpatient unit; 32.3% and 17.9% of participants experienced a motor vehicle crash or gunshot wound, respectively. The CAPS-5 and PCL-5 were administered approximately 6.5 months postinjury. We examined whether compared to the full PCL-5, the abbreviated versions would adequately differentiate between participants with and without a CAPS-5 PTSD diagnosis. The abbreviated versions were highly correlated with the total scale and showed good-to-excellent internal consistency. The diagnostic utility of the abbreviated measures was comparable to that of the total scale regarding sensitivity, suggesting they may be useful as abbreviated screening tools; however, the total scale functioned better regarding specificity. The abbreviated versions of the PCL-5 may be useful screening instruments in the long-term care of traumatic injury survivors and may be more likely to be implemented across routine clinical and research contexts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available