Van Hooff Miranda, McFarlane Alexander C, Baur Jenelle, Abraham Maria, Barnes Daniel J
University of Adelaide, The Centre for Military and Veterans' Health, Level 2/122 Frome Street, Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia.
J Anxiety Disord. 2009 Jan;23(1):77-86. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2008.04.001. Epub 2008 Apr 18.
Considerable controversy exists with regard to the interpretation and definition of the stressor "A1" criterion for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). At present, classifying an event as either traumatic (satisfying DSM-IV Criterion-A1 for PTSD), or non-traumatic (life event) is determined by the rater's subjective interpretation of the diagnostic criteria. This has implications in research and clinical practice. Utilizing a sample of 860 Australian adults, this study is the first to provide a detailed examination of the impact of event categorization on the prevalence of trauma and PTSD. Overall, events classified as non-traumatic were associated with higher rates of PTSD. Unanimous agreement between raters occurred for 683 (79.4%) events. As predicted, the categorization method employed (single rater, multiple rater-majority, multiple rater-unanimous) substantially altered the prevalence of Criterion-A1 events and PTSD, raising doubts about the functionality of PTSD diagnostic criteria. Factors impacting on the categorization process and suggestions for minimizing discrepancies in future research are discussed.
关于创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)应激源“A1”标准的解释和定义存在相当大的争议。目前,将一个事件归类为创伤性事件(符合DSM-IV PTSD的A1标准)或非创伤性事件(生活事件)是由评估者对诊断标准的主观解释决定的。这在研究和临床实践中都有影响。本研究以860名澳大利亚成年人为样本,首次详细考察了事件分类对创伤和PTSD患病率的影响。总体而言,被归类为非创伤性的事件与较高的PTSD发生率相关。评估者之间对683起(79.4%)事件达成了一致意见。正如所预测的,所采用的分类方法(单一评估者、多个评估者-多数、多个评估者-一致)极大地改变了A1标准事件和PTSD的患病率,这引发了人们对PTSD诊断标准功能的质疑。文中讨论了影响分类过程的因素以及在未来研究中尽量减少差异的建议。