Naifeh James A, Elhai Jon D, Kashdan Todd B, Grubaugh Anouk L
Disaster Mental Health Institute, The University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD 57069-2390, United States.
J Anxiety Disord. 2008 Dec;22(8):1355-68. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2008.01.016. Epub 2008 Feb 7.
Several studies have employed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate the latent structure of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) assessment measures among various trauma-exposed populations. Findings have generally failed to support the current three-factor DSM-IV PTSD conceptualization, demonstrating the need to consider alternative models. The present study used CFA to evaluate seven models, including intercorrelated and hierarchical versions of two models with the most empirical support. Data were utilized from a heterogeneous trauma-exposed sample of general medical patients (n=252). Based on several indices, the three-factor DSM-IV PTSD model was shown to be inferior to alternative models. The strongest support was found for an intercorrelated four-factor model, separating avoidance and numbing symptoms into distinct factors. Validity for this model was partially supported by divergent relations between factors and external variables. Implications of the results are discussed, and a framework is proposed for resolving discrepant findings in the PTSD CFA literature.
多项研究采用验证性因素分析(CFA)来评估不同创伤暴露人群中创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)评估量表的潜在结构。研究结果总体上未能支持当前的DSM-IV PTSD三因素概念化,表明需要考虑替代模型。本研究使用CFA评估了七个模型,包括两个最具实证支持的模型的相互关联和层次版本。数据来自普通内科患者的异质性创伤暴露样本(n = 252)。基于多个指标,DSM-IV PTSD三因素模型被证明不如替代模型。对一个相互关联的四因素模型的支持最为强烈,该模型将回避和麻木症状分为不同因素。因素与外部变量之间的差异关系部分支持了该模型的有效性。讨论了结果的含义,并提出了一个框架来解决PTSD CFA文献中的不一致发现。