Silje Hukkelberg1, Silje M Ormhaug2, Tonje Holt2, Tore Wentzel-Larsen3, Tine K Jensen4. 1. Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies, Kirkeveien 166, Building 48, 0450 Oslo, Norway; Norwegian Center for Child Behavioral Development, P.O. Box 7053 Majorstuen, 0306 Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: s.s.hukkelberg@atferdssenteret.no. 2. Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies, Kirkeveien 166, Building 48, 0450 Oslo, Norway. 3. Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies, Kirkeveien 166, Building 48, 0450 Oslo, Norway; Centre for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Eastern and Southern Norway, Oslo, Norway. 4. Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies, Kirkeveien 166, Building 48, 0450 Oslo, Norway; Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Postbox 1094 Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study compared the diagnostic utility of the symptom part of the child PTSD symptom scale (CPSS) screening instrument with the clinician-administered PTSD scale for children and adolescents (CAPS-CA). METHODS: The study included a clinical sample of traumatized children and adolescents (mean age 15.1, range 10-18) living in Norway, who were assessed for posttraumatic stress symptoms using the CPSS and the CAPS-CA. Diagnostic utility was investigated using receiver operating characteristic analyses. RESULTS: The results showed that CPSS reached medium effect sizes (AUC from .63 to .76). The sensitivity was good (.80), but the specificity was relatively low (.56). Kappa between CPSS and CAPS-CA was low (κ=.27). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggests that CPSS is a good tool for screening purposes, but not as a diagnostic instrument in an early phase of assessment. Implications and limitations of the findings are discussed. Crown
OBJECTIVES: This study compared the diagnostic utility of the symptom part of the childPTSD symptom scale (CPSS) screening instrument with the clinician-administered PTSD scale for children and adolescents (CAPS-CA). METHODS: The study included a clinical sample of traumatized children and adolescents (mean age 15.1, range 10-18) living in Norway, who were assessed for posttraumatic stress symptoms using the CPSS and the CAPS-CA. Diagnostic utility was investigated using receiver operating characteristic analyses. RESULTS: The results showed that CPSS reached medium effect sizes (AUC from .63 to .76). The sensitivity was good (.80), but the specificity was relatively low (.56). Kappa between CPSS and CAPS-CA was low (κ=.27). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggests that CPSS is a good tool for screening purposes, but not as a diagnostic instrument in an early phase of assessment. Implications and limitations of the findings are discussed. Crown
Authors: Tine K Jensen; Envor M Bjørgo Skårdalsmo; Krister W Fjermestad Journal: Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health Date: 2014-11-17 Impact factor: 3.033