K Magruder1, D Yeager1, J Goldberg2, C Forsberg2, B Litz3, V Vaccarino4, M Friedman5, T Gleason6, G Huang6, N Smith2. 1. Mental Health Service,Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center,Charleston,South Carolina,USA. 2. Seattle Epidemiologic Research and Information Center,VA Puget Sound Health Care System,Seattle,Washington,USA. 3. Massachusetts Epidemiology Research and Information Center,VA Boston Healthcare System,Boston,Massachusetts,USA. 4. Departments of Epidemiology and Medicine,Emory University,Atlanta,Georgia,USA. 5. Department of Veterans Affairs,National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder,White River Junction,Vermont,USA. 6. Cooperative Studies Program,Clinical Science Research and Development,VA Office of Research and Development,Washington,DC,USA.
Abstract
AIMS: Self-report questionnaires are frequently used in clinical and epidemiologic studies to assess post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A number of studies have evaluated these scales relative to clinician administered structured interviews; however, there has been no formal evaluation of their performance relative to non-clinician administered epidemiologic assessments such as the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). We examined the diagnostic performance of two self-report PTSD scales, the PTSD checklist (PCL) and the Vietnam Era Twin Registry (VET-R) PTSD scale, compared to the CIDI. METHODS: Data were derived from a large epidemiologic follow-up study of PTSD in 5141 Vietnam Era Veterans. Measures included the PCL, VET-R PTSD scale and CIDI. For both the PCL and VET-R PTSD scale, ROC curves, areas under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, % correctly classified, likelihood ratios, predictive values and quality estimates were generated based on the CIDI PTSD diagnosis. RESULTS: For the PCL and VET-R PTSD scale the AUCs were 89.0 and 87.7%, respectively. Optimal PCL cutpoints varied from the 31-33 range (when considering sensitivity and specificity) to the 36-56 range (when considering quality estimates). Similar variations were found for the VET-R PTSD, ranging from 31 (when considering sensitivity and specificity) to the 37-42 range (when considering quality estimates). CONCLUSIONS: The PCL and VET-R PTSD scale performed similarly using a CIDI PTSD diagnosis as the criterion. There was a range of acceptable cutpoints, depending on the metric used, but most metrics suggested a lower PCL cutpoint than in previous studies in Veteran populations.
AIMS: Self-report questionnaires are frequently used in clinical and epidemiologic studies to assess post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A number of studies have evaluated these scales relative to clinician administered structured interviews; however, there has been no formal evaluation of their performance relative to non-clinician administered epidemiologic assessments such as the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). We examined the diagnostic performance of two self-report PTSD scales, the PTSD checklist (PCL) and the Vietnam Era Twin Registry (VET-R) PTSD scale, compared to the CIDI. METHODS: Data were derived from a large epidemiologic follow-up study of PTSD in 5141 Vietnam Era Veterans. Measures included the PCL, VET-R PTSD scale and CIDI. For both the PCL and VET-R PTSD scale, ROC curves, areas under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, % correctly classified, likelihood ratios, predictive values and quality estimates were generated based on the CIDI PTSD diagnosis. RESULTS: For the PCL and VET-R PTSD scale the AUCs were 89.0 and 87.7%, respectively. Optimal PCL cutpoints varied from the 31-33 range (when considering sensitivity and specificity) to the 36-56 range (when considering quality estimates). Similar variations were found for the VET-R PTSD, ranging from 31 (when considering sensitivity and specificity) to the 37-42 range (when considering quality estimates). CONCLUSIONS: The PCL and VET-R PTSD scale performed similarly using a CIDI PTSD diagnosis as the criterion. There was a range of acceptable cutpoints, depending on the metric used, but most metrics suggested a lower PCL cutpoint than in previous studies in Veteran populations.
Authors: M A Schuster; B D Stein; L Jaycox; R L Collins; G N Marshall; M N Elliott; A J Zhou; D E Kanouse; J L Morrison; S H Berry Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-11-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: L N Robins; J Wing; H U Wittchen; J E Helzer; T F Babor; J Burke; A Farmer; A Jablenski; R Pickens; D A Regier Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 1988-12
Authors: William E Schlenger; Juesta M Caddell; Lori Ebert; B Kathleen Jordan; Kathryn M Rourke; David Wilson; Lisa Thalji; J Michael Dennis; John A Fairbank; Richard A Kulka Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-08-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Pradeep Suri; Edward J Boyko; Nicholas L Smith; Jeffrey G Jarvik; Frances M K Williams; Gail P Jarvik; Jack Goldberg Journal: Spine J Date: 2016-10-26 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Erika J Wolf; Mark W Miller; Danielle R Sullivan; Ananda B Amstadter; Karen S Mitchell; Jack Goldberg; Kathryn M Magruder Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2017-12-28 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: Carol E Franz; Sean N Hatton; Richard L Hauger; M Alexandra Kredlow; Anders M Dale; Lisa Eyler; Linda K McEvoy; Christine Fennema-Notestine; Donald Hagler; Kristen C Jacobson; Ruth E McKenzie; Matthew S Panizzon; Daniel E Gustavson; Hong Xian; Rosemary Toomey; Asad Beck; Samantha Stevens; Xin Tu; Michael J Lyons; William S Kremen Journal: Brain Imaging Behav Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 3.978
Authors: Niloofar Afari; Marianna Gasperi; Cara Dochat; Jennalee S Wooldridge; Matthew S Herbert; Ellen A Schur; Dedra S Buchwald Journal: Eat Disord Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Pradeep Suri; Edward J Boyko; Nicholas L Smith; Jeffrey G Jarvik; Gail P Jarvik; Frances M K Williams; Rhonda Williams; Jodie Haselkorn; Jack Goldberg Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 3.241
Authors: Pradeep Suri; Adrienne D Tanus; Nikki Torres; Andrew Timmons; Bianca Irimia; Janna L Friedly; Anna Korpak; Clinton Daniels; Daniel Morelli; Paul W Hodges; Nathalia Costa; Melissa A Day; Patrick J Heagerty; Mark P Jensen Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 2.562
Authors: Samantha M Stevens; Daniel E Gustavson; Bin Fang; Xin Tu; Mark Logue; Michael J Lyons; Chandra A Reynolds; William S Kremen; Carol E Franz Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-06-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Kristina Stepanovic; Baxter Rogers; Amy L Kiehl; E Wesley Ely; James Jackson; Jo Ellen Wilson Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 4.677