Jina Li1, Weijun Zhang2, Wenrui Chen3, Hui Yuan4, Shengfa Zhang1, Meng Tian1, Zhiyong Qu5. 1. Center for Behavioral Health & School of Social Development and Public Policy, Beijing Normal University, No. 19, Xinjiekou Wai Street, Beijing 100875, China. 2. Center for Behavioral Health & School of Social Development and Public Policy, Beijing Normal University, No. 19, Xinjiekou Wai Street, Beijing 100875, China. Electronic address: zwj@bnu.edu.cn. 3. The India China Institute, The New School, New York, NY 10011, United States. Electronic address: wc526@nyu.edu. 4. Center for Behavioral Health & School of Social Development and Public Policy, Beijing Normal University, No. 19, Xinjiekou Wai Street, Beijing 100875, China. Electronic address: ydysunny2016@sina.com. 5. Center for Behavioral Health & School of Social Development and Public Policy, Beijing Normal University, No. 19, Xinjiekou Wai Street, Beijing 100875, China. Electronic address: qzy@bnu.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective screening is important for public mental health services. Although the primary care PTSD screen for DSM-5 (PC-PTSD-5) is useful in screening for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults, its reliability and validity for use in children remain unclear. This study aimed to examine the performance characteristics of the Chinese PC-PTSD-5 for children in children aged 8 to 16 years. METHODS: 4,022 rural children from Grades 4 to 9 in China were included in this study. All participants were assessed for PTSD using the Chinese PC-PTSD-5 for children and the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), and assessed for anxiety using the Chinese version of the State Anxiety Scale for Children (CSAS-C), and for depression using the Children's Depression Inventory - Short Form (CDI-S). The performance characteristics of the PC-PTSD-5 for children were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic analyses. RESULTS: The mean scores on the PCL-5 and the PC-PTSD-5 were 17.45 (SD = 14.78) and 1.78 (SD = 1.33), respectively. There was a significant correlation between the PC-PTSD-5 and PCL-5 (r = 0.54, p < 0.001), and small but significant correlations of the PC-PTSD-5 with the CSAS-C (r = 0.31, p < 0.001) and CDI-S (r = 0.27, p < 0.001). In this study, 2 and 3 were both found to be acceptable cutoff values. A cutoff value of 2 yielded a sensitivity of 0.87 and a specificity of 0.52, while a cutoff of 3 had sensitivity = 0.57, and specificity = 0.77. LIMITATIONS: A clinical interview was not used to validated diagnostic findings. CONCLUSIONS: The reliability and validity of the Chinese PC-PTSD-5 were statistically acceptable for screening for probable PTSD in children. Additionally, the Chinese PC-PTSD-5 had a favorable sensitivity at a cut off 2 and a favorable specificity at a cut off 3, based on PCL-5 results.
BACKGROUND: Effective screening is important for public mental health services. Although the primary care PTSD screen for DSM-5 (PC-PTSD-5) is useful in screening for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults, its reliability and validity for use in children remain unclear. This study aimed to examine the performance characteristics of the Chinese PC-PTSD-5 for children in children aged 8 to 16 years. METHODS: 4,022 rural children from Grades 4 to 9 in China were included in this study. All participants were assessed for PTSD using the Chinese PC-PTSD-5 for children and the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), and assessed for anxiety using the Chinese version of the State Anxiety Scale for Children (CSAS-C), and for depression using the Children's Depression Inventory - Short Form (CDI-S). The performance characteristics of the PC-PTSD-5 for children were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic analyses. RESULTS: The mean scores on the PCL-5 and the PC-PTSD-5 were 17.45 (SD = 14.78) and 1.78 (SD = 1.33), respectively. There was a significant correlation between the PC-PTSD-5 and PCL-5 (r = 0.54, p < 0.001), and small but significant correlations of the PC-PTSD-5 with the CSAS-C (r = 0.31, p < 0.001) and CDI-S (r = 0.27, p < 0.001). In this study, 2 and 3 were both found to be acceptable cutoff values. A cutoff value of 2 yielded a sensitivity of 0.87 and a specificity of 0.52, while a cutoff of 3 had sensitivity = 0.57, and specificity = 0.77. LIMITATIONS: A clinical interview was not used to validated diagnostic findings. CONCLUSIONS: The reliability and validity of the Chinese PC-PTSD-5 were statistically acceptable for screening for probable PTSD in children. Additionally, the Chinese PC-PTSD-5 had a favorable sensitivity at a cut off 2 and a favorable specificity at a cut off 3, based on PCL-5 results.