Dataset Information

The underlying dimensionality of PTSD in the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: where are we going?

ABSTRACT: There has been a substantial body of literature devoted to answering one question: Which latent model of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) best represents PTSD's underlying dimensionality? This research summary will, therefore, focus on the literature pertaining to PTSD's latent structure as represented in the fourth (DSM-IV, 1994) to the fifth (DSM-5, 2013) edition of the DSM. This article will begin by providing a clear rationale as to why this is a pertinent research area, then the body of literature pertaining to the DSM-IV and DSM-IV-TR will be summarised, and this will be followed by a summary of the literature pertaining to the recently published DSM-5. To conclude, there will be a discussion with recommendations for future research directions, namely that researchers must investigate the applicability of the new DSM-5 criteria and the newly created DSM-5 symptom sets to trauma survivors. In addition, researchers must continue to endeavour to identify the "correct" constellations of symptoms within symptom sets to ensure that diagnostic algorithms are appropriate and aid in the development of targeted treatment approaches and interventions. In particular, the newly proposed DSM-5 anhedonia model, externalising behaviours model, and hybrid models must be further investigated. It is also important that researchers follow up on the idea that a more parsimonious latent structure of PTSD may exist.

SUBMITTER: Armour C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4439421 | biostudies-other | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The underlying dimensionality of PTSD in the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: where are we going?

Armour Cherie C

European journal of psychotraumatology 20150519

There has been a substantial body of literature devoted to answering one question: Which latent model of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) best represents PTSD's underlying dimensionality? This research summary will, therefore, focus on the literature pertaining to PTSD's latent structure as represented in the fourth (DSM-IV, 1994) to the fifth (DSM-5, 2013) edition of the DSM. This article will begin by providing a clear rationale as to why this is a pertinent research area, then the body of ...[more]

PMID: 25994027

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportancePosttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a serious mental health disorder that can be effectively treated with empirically based practices. PTSD screening is essential for identifying undetected cases and providing patients with appropriate care.ObjectiveTo determine whether the Primary Care PTSD screen for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) (PC-PTSD-5) is a diagnostically accurate and acceptable measure for use in Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional, diagnostic accuracy study enrolled participants from May 19, 2017, to September 26, 2018. Participants were recruited from primary care clinics across 2 VA Medical Centers. Session 1 was conducted in person, and session 2 was completed within 30 days via telephone. A consecutive sample of 1594 veterans, aged 18 years or older, who were scheduled for a primary care visit was recruited. Data analysis was performed from March 2019 to August 2020.ExposuresIn session 1, participants completed a battery of questionnaires. In session 2, a research assistant administered the PC-PTSD-5 to participants, and then a clinician assessor blind to PC-PTSD-5 results conducted a structured diagnostic interview for PTSD.Main outcomes and measuresThe range of PC-PTSD-5 cut points overall and across gender was assessed, and diagnostic performance was evaluated by calculating weighted κ values.ResultsIn total, 495 of 1594 veterans (31%) participated, and 396 completed all measures and were included in the analyses. Participants were demographically similar to the VA primary care population (mean [SD] age, 61.4 [15.5] years; age range, 21-93 years) and were predominantly male (333 participants [84.1%]) and White (296 of 394 participants [75.1%]). The PC-PTSD-5 had high levels of diagnostic accuracy for the overall sample (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.927; 95% CI, 0.896-0.959), men (AUC, 0.932; 95% CI, 0.894-0.969), and women (AUC, 0.899, 95% CI, 0.824-0.974). A cut point of 4 ideally balanced false negatives and false positives for the overall sample and for men. However, for women, this cut point resulted in high numbers of false negatives (6 veterans [33.3%]). A cut point of 3 fit better for women, despite increasing the number of false positives. Participants rated the PC-PTSD-5 as highly acceptable.Conclusions and relevanceThe PC-PTSD-5 is an accurate and acceptable screening tool for use in VA primary care settings. Because performance parameters will change according to sample, clinicians should consider sample characteristics and screening purposes when selecting a cut point.

Project description:BackgroundScreen use is part of daily life worldwide and morbidity related to excess use of screens has been reported. Some use of screens in excess could indicate a screen use disorder (ScUD). An integrative approach to ScUD could better fit the polymodal reality of screens, and concurrent problems with screens, than a split approach, activity by activity. In that paradigm, a pragmatic and operationalized approach to study a potential ScUD requires the use of common criteria, for all screens and activities done on screens, in a single questionnaire.ObjectiveOur goals were (1) to describe screen uses in a general population sample and (2) to test the unidimensionality, local independence, and psychometric properties of the 9 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) internet gaming disorder (IGD) criteria adapted to screen use in a community sample. We hypothesized that the 9 DSM-5 IGD criteria adapted to ScUD would show unidimensionality, local independence, and good discrimination, with criteria distributed on the severity continuum.MethodsThis cross-sectional survey in a French suburban city targeted adults and adolescents. A self-administered questionnaire covered the main types of screens used and their use for various activities in the past month. Presence of ScUD diagnostic criteria in past 12 months was also self-evaluated in the questionnaire. Factor and 2-parameter Item Response Theory analysis were used to investigate the dimensionality, local independence, and psychometric properties of the ScUD criteria.ResultsAmong the 300 participants, 171 (57.0%) were female (mean age 27 years), 297 (99.0%) used screens, 134 (44.7%) reported at least one criterion (potential problem users), and 5 (1.7%) reported 5 or more criteria and endorsed an ScUD. The most endorsed criteria were loss of control (60/300, 20.0%) and preoccupation (52/300, 17.3%). Screen types used and screen activities differed between participants with no ScUD criteria and those with at least one ScUD criterion. The latter were more likely to have a computer as the most used screen type, and more video gaming, communication/social network, and watching news and research of information as activities. Unidimensionality was confirmed by all fit indices. Local independence was confirmed by the absence of residual correlation between the items. Criteria had relatively high factor loading, with loss of interest in other recreational activities having the highest. However, criteria with the lowest factor loading all remained above the cut-offs, sanctioning unidimensionality. Most discriminating criteria were loss of interests, preoccupation, deceive/cover up, and risk/lose relationship/opportunities, which also provided the most information on the measurement of the latent trait.ConclusionsWe described screen uses in a French community sample and have shown that the adaptation of the DSM-5 IGD to "ScUD" has good psychometric validity and is discriminating, confirming our hypothesis. We suggest to use those criteria to assess potential "ScUD." Further studies should determine if all criteria are needed and whether others should be added.

Project description:ImportanceThe definition of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) changed markedly between the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) and DSM-5, creating challenges for studies and in medical settings spanning this transition.ObjectiveTo evaluate the ability to compare and assess PTSD, based on DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria, using PTSD Checklists (PCLs).Design, setting, and participantsThis diagnostic study was conducted with survey data collected in October 2019, from the Millennium Cohort Study, a population-based US military cohort study. The population for the present study was restricted to a subset of initial web responders of the 2019 survey cycle, randomly assigned to 1 of 4 survey groups.ExposuresEach group received the DSM-IV and DSM-5 PCL (PCL-Civilian [PCL-C] version and PCL for DSM-5 [PCL-5]). PCL instruments were counterbalanced to control for order effects.Main outcomes and measuresSurvey data were used to assess PTSD (using the PCL-C and PCL-5), major depressive disorder (using the Patient Health Questionnaire), generalized anxiety (using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale), and problem drinking (using the Patient Health Questionnaire). Demographic and military characteristics included age, sex, race/ethnicity, marital status, education, service branch, pay grade, enrollment panel, and military service status.ResultsAmong the 1921 participants (mean [SD] age, 50.1 [12.5] years), 1358 (70.7%) were men, 1638 (85.3%) were non-Hispanic White individuals, 1440 (75.0%) were married, and 1190 (61.9%) had at least a bachelor's degree; 295 (15.4%) had probable PTSD according to DSM-IV criteria with PCL-C compared with 286 (14.9%) using DSM-5 criteria with PCL-5 (κ = 0.77). There was substantial agreement between PCLs for probable PTSD based on DSM-IV criteria (295 [15.4%] with PCL-C; 316 [16.4%] with PCL-5; κ = 0.80) and DSM-5 criteria (286 [14.9%] with PCL-5; 258 [13.4%] with PCL-C; κ = 0.77). Estimated PTSD sum scores showed excellent agreement with observed scores. Using an established crosswalk, PCL-5 sum scores estimated with the PCL-C were similar to observed PCL-5 scores. Of the 17 corresponding items between the 2 instruments, 16 had substantial agreement. Appending 2 additional PCL-C items to the PCL-5 did not significantly alter estimates. The PCL-C and PCL-5 had nearly identical associations with comorbid conditions.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this diagnostic study suggest that PTSD can be successfully assessed and compared over time with either PCL instrument in veteran and military populations.

Project description:PurposeTo describe and evaluate somatic symptoms in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and fibromyalgia, determine the relation between somatization syndromes and fibromyalgia, and evaluate symptom data in light of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-5 (DSM-5) criteria for somatic symptom disorder.MethodsWe administered the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15), a measure of somatic symptom severity to 6,233 persons with fibromyalgia, RA, and osteoarthritis. PHQ-15 scores of 5, 10, and 15 represent low, medium, and high somatic symptom severity cut-points. A likely somatization syndrome was diagnosed when PHQ-15 score was ≥10. The intensity of fibromyalgia diagnostic symptoms was measured by the polysymptomatic distress (PSD) scale.Results26.4% of RA patients and 88.9% with fibromyalgia had PHQ-15 scores ≥10 compared with 9.3% in the general population. With each step-wise increase in PHQ-15 category, more abnormal mental and physical health status scores were observed. RA patients satisfying fibromyalgia criteria increased from 1.2% in the PHQ-15 low category to 88.9% in the high category. The sensitivity and specificity of PHQ-15≥10 for fibromyalgia diagnosis was 80.9% and 80.0% (correctly classified = 80.3%) compared with 84.3% and 93.7% (correctly classified = 91.7%) for the PSD scale. 51.4% of fibromyalgia patients and 14.8% with RA had fatigue, sleep or cognitive problems that were severe, continuous, and life-disturbing; and almost all fibromyalgia patients had severe impairments of function and quality of life.ConclusionsAll patients with fibromyalgia will satisfy the DSM-5 "A" criterion for distressing somatic symptoms, and most would seem to satisfy DSM-5 "B" criterion because symptom impact is life-disturbing or associated with substantial impairment of function and quality of life. But the "B" designation requires special knowledge that symptoms are "disproportionate" or "excessive," something that is uncertain and controversial. The reliability and validity of DSM-5 criteria in this population is likely to be low.

Project description:BackgroundOne third of patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) will develop delirium. However, delirium is under-recognized by bedside clinicians without the use of delirium screening tools, such as the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) or the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU). The CAM-ICU was updated in 2014 to improve its use by clinicians throughout the world. It has never been validated compared to the new reference standard, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th version (DSM-5).MethodsWe made a prospective psychometric study in a 16-bed medical-surgical ICU of a French academic hospital, to measure the diagnostic performance of the 2014 updated CAM-ICU compared to the DSM-5 as the reference standard. We included consecutive adult patients with a Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) ≥ -3, without preexisting cognitive disorders, psychosis or cerebral injury. Delirium was independently assessed by neuropsychological experts using an operationalized approach to DSM-5, by investigators using the CAM-ICU and the ICDSC, by bedside clinicians and by ICU patients. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated considering neuropsychologist DSM-5 assessments as the reference standard (primary endpoint). CAM-ICU inter-observer agreement, as well as that between delirium diagnosis methods and the reference standard, was summarized using κ coefficients, which were subsequently compared using the Z-test.ResultsDelirium was diagnosed by experts in 38% of the 108 patients included for analysis. The CAM-ICU had a sensitivity of 83%, a specificity of 100%, a positive predictive value of 100% and a negative predictive value of 91%. Compared to the reference standard, the CAM-ICU had a significantly (p < 0.05) higher agreement (κ = 0.86 ± 0.05) than the physicians,' residents' and nurses' diagnoses (κ = 0.65 ± 0.09; 0.63 ± 0.09; 0.61 ± 0.09, respectively), as well as the patient's own impression of feeling delirious (κ = 0.02 ± 0.11). Differences between the ICDSC (κ = 0.69 ± 0.07) and CAM-ICU were not significant (p = 0.054). The CAM-ICU demonstrated a high reliability for inter-observer agreement (κ = 0.87 ± 0.06).ConclusionsThe 2014 updated version of the CAM-ICU is valid according to DSM-5 criteria and reliable regarding inter-observer agreement in a research setting. Delirium remains under-recognized by bedside clinicians.

Dataset Information

The underlying dimensionality of PTSD in the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: where are we going?

Publications

The underlying dimensionality of PTSD in the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: where are we going?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets