Most of the participants were treatment-seeking ( n = 320), only n = 32 were recruited via newspaper announcement and were non-treatment seeking participants.
In total, N = 566 participants with a lifetime trauma history were informed about the study and n = 352 signed written consent. Recruitment took place in five different treatment centers specializing in the treatment of trauma-related disorders through staff describing the study to the patients and via newspaper announcement from June 2014 until December 2015. This was assessed via self-report on the LEC. Inclusion criteria were exposure to at least one traumatic event and at least one month elapsed since the trauma. The investigated sample ( N = 341) was diverse in terms of demographic characteristics and reported various types of traumatic events (see Table 2 for sample characteristics). Externalizing Behavior, and (e) a seven-factor Hybrid Model combining the Anhedonia and Externalizing Behavior Models described above. positive affect, (d) the six-factor Externalizing Behavior Model also extending the Dysphoric Arousal Model by separating the Dysphoric Arousal factor into two separate factors of External Arousal vs. This includes (a) the Dysphoria Model that was modified from the original model due to different and additional symptoms in the DSM-5 and comprises the four factors re-experiencing, avoidance, dysphoria, hyperarousal, (b) the five-factor Dysphoric Arousal Model, also modified due to the DSM-5 changes, separating hyperarousal into the two distinct clusters of dysphoric arousal and anxious arousal, (c) the six-factor Anhedonia Model extending the Dysphoric Arousal Model by separating the Negative Alterations in Cognition and Mood factor into two distinct factors representing changes in negative vs. Although this recent study suggests that the PCL-5 possesses adequate diagnostic utility to be used as screening instrument for PTSD, clearly more research is needed comparing the PCL-5 to the gold standard diagnosis established from a structured clinical interview in additional samples.įive alternative models have recently received most attention in the empirical literature (see also Table 1 for an overview of the different models). When applying this rule to the PCL-5, Bovin and colleagues also found good diagnostic agreement with the CAPS-5 (sensitivity = .81, specificity = .71, overall efficiency = .78). An alternative scoring method for the PCL-5 is treating each item rated as at least 2 (moderately) as a symptom endorsed and then following the DSM-5 diagnostic rule to establish a provisional PTSD diagnosis. This is in line with the cutoff of 33 suggested by the developers of the PCL-5 1. Results showed that cutoff scores of 31-33 on the PCL-5 showed the best diagnostic utility in predicting CAPS diagnoses, with no difference between the three scores (sensitivity = .88, specificity = .69, overall efficiency = .80). where the PCL-5 was evaluated against a CAPS-5 diagnosis of PTSD. with a preliminary version of the PCL-5 and in Bovin et al. To our knowledge, this has only been reported in two studies to date, namely Marmar et al. 1 In order to test the diagnostic utility of the PCL-5 as a screening instrument, it appears necessary to compare it to a gold standard structured clinical interview, such as the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5).
According to its developers, one of the purposes of the PCL-5 is to screen individuals for PTSD and make a provisional PTSD diagnosis.