Department of Psychology, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio 43606-3390, USA.
J Trauma Stress. 2011 Apr;24(2):208-12. doi: 10.1002/jts.20628. Epub 2011 Mar 25.
The authors examined posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) item wording differences on the factor structure of PTSD. Nonclinical, trauma-exposed participants were randomly assigned to complete a PTSD measure using item wording content from the PTSD Checklist (n = 182) or PTSD Symptom Scale (n = 203). Compared to the 4-factor emotional numbing PTSD model, the 4-factor dysphoria PTSD model fit best across groups based on smaller Bayesian information criterion (BIC) values. For PTSD Checklist participants, the numbing model's BIC was 6238.54 compared to the dysphoria model's BIC of 6156.03. For the PTSD Symptom Scale, the numbing model's BIC was 6161.38 compared to the dysphoria model's BIC of 6102.87. Groups differed on variable intercepts and residual variances. Instrument and construct implications are discussed.
作者研究了创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)项目措辞在 PTSD 结构因素方面的差异。非临床创伤暴露参与者被随机分配使用 PTSD 检查表(n = 182)或 PTSD 症状量表(n = 203)中的项目措辞内容完成 PTSD 测量。与 4 因素情感麻木 PTSD 模型相比,基于更小的贝叶斯信息准则(BIC)值,4 因素烦躁不安 PTSD 模型在所有组中都更符合。对于 PTSD 检查表参与者,麻木模型的 BIC 为 6238.54,而烦躁不安模型的 BIC 为 6156.03。对于 PTSD 症状量表,麻木模型的 BIC 为 6161.38,而烦躁不安模型的 BIC 为 6102.87。各组在变量截距和残差方差上存在差异。讨论了仪器和结构的含义。