Department of Psychology, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA.
J Trauma Stress. 2010 Oct;23(5):639-41; discussion 642-4. doi: 10.1002/jts.20567.
In this commentary, the author evaluates the results and conclusions of Miller et al. (2010) with respect to the debate surrounding the posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) structural models of King, Leskin, King, and Weathers (1998) and Simms, Watson, and Doebbeling (2002). Although Miller et al. are to be commended for attempting to move this literature forward through a comparative assessment of the models' respective convergent and discriminant validities, the author questions their conclusions based on the data presented. His read of their data, in the context of the broader literature, is that the Simms model has advantages over the King model with respect to discriminant validity. It is premature to declare a winner in the ongoing debate on the merits of these structural models.
在这篇评论中，作者针对围绕着 King、Leskin、King 和 Weathers（1998 年）以及 Simms、Watson 和 Doebbeling（2002 年）的创伤后应激障碍（PTSD）结构模型的争论，评估了 Miller 等人的研究结果和结论。尽管 Miller 等人通过对模型各自的收敛和区别有效性进行比较评估，试图推动这一文献的发展，值得称赞，但作者基于所呈现的数据对他们的结论提出了质疑。根据更广泛的文献，他对这些数据的解读是，与 King 模型相比，Simms 模型在区别有效性方面具有优势。在这些结构模型的优点的持续争论中，现在就宣称谁是赢家还为时过早。
