Search

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.

Many studies have investigated the latent structure of the DSM-5 criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, most research on this topic was based on self-report data. We aimed to investigate the latent structure of PTSD based on a clinical interview, the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS-5). A clinical sample of 345 participants took part in this multi-centre study. Participants were assessed with the CAPS-5 and the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL-5). We evaluated eight competing models of DSM-5 PTSD symptoms and three competing models of ICD-11 PTSD symptoms. The internal consistency of the CAPS-5 was replicated. In CFAs, the Anhedonia model emerged as the best fitting model within all tested DSM-5 models. However, when compared with the Anhedonia model, the non-nested ICD-11 model as a less complex three-factor solution showed better model fit indices. We discuss the findings in the context of earlier empirical findings as well as theoretical models of PTSD. We investigated the latent structure of PTSD based on a clinical interview (CAPS-5). The Anhedonia model emerged as the best fitting model within all tested DSM-5 models. However, the less complex non-nested ICD-11 model showed better model fit indices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2013, the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale, the golden standard to assess PTSD, was adapted to the DSM-5 (CAPS-5). Objective: This project aimed to develop a clinically relevant Dutch translation of the CAPS-5 and to investigate its psychometric properties. Method: We conducted a stepped translation including Delphi rounds with a crowd of 44 Dutch psychotrauma experts and five senior psychotrauma experts. Using partial crowd-translations, two professional translations and the official Dutch translation of the DSM-5, each senior expert aggregated one independent translation. Consensus was reached plenary. After back-translation, comparison with the original CAPS-5 and field testing, a last round with the senior experts resulted in the final version. After implementation clinicians conducted CAPS-5 interviews with 669 trauma-exposed individuals referred for specialized diagnostic assessment. Reliability of the Dutch CAPS-5 was investigated through internal consistency and interrater reliability analyses, and construct validity through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results: CAPS-5 total severity score showed high internal consistency (α = .90) and interrater reliability (ICC = .98, 95% CI:.94-.99). CAPS-5 diagnosis showed modest interrater reliability (kappa = .59, 95% CI:.20-.98). CFA with alternative PTSD models revealed adequate support for the DSM-5 four-factor model, but a six-factor (Anhedonia) model fit the data best. Conclusions: The Dutch CAPS-5 is a carefully translated instrument with adequate psychometric properties. Current results add to the growing support for more refined (six and seven) factor models for DSM-5 PTSD indicating that the validity and clinical implications of these models should be objective of further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]