Mindanao State University - Iligan Institute of Technology, Philippines.
University of Santo Tomas Graduate School Psychotrauma Clinic, Philippines.
Asian J Psychiatr. 2014 Oct;11:28-34. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2014.05.003. Epub 2014 Jun 27.
The discourse of latent structure of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been extensive in trauma literature. Although findings have been consistent in rejecting DSM-IV-TR's three-factor model, alternative models are still fervently argued. This study contributes to the discussion by examining and comparing PTSD factor structure of the three most validated models—numbing model (King et al., 1998), dysphoria model (Simms et al., 2002), and dysphoric arousal model (Elhai et al., 2011b)—and determining if these are generalizable across treatment-seeking and non-treatment-seeking Filipinos with exposure to trauma events.
Filipino-Tagalog version of Harvard Trauma Questionnaire (HTQ; Mollica et al., 1992) was administered to a sample of 737 treatment-seeking (n=526) and non-treatment-seeking (n=211) Filipinos who experienced and witnessed varied trauma events. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted involving the three models in order to determine the best-fitting model and generalizability across samples.
Results showed that all three models achieved excellent fit, with dysphoric arousal model slightly fitting better than numbing and dysphoria models in both treatment-seeking and non-treatment-seeking samples. Series of invariance testing, however, indicated that although dysphoric arousal model fits significantly better than dysphoria model, it did not significantly differ from numbing model. Results revealed that aside from the factor loadings, the two groups are noninvariant in all parameters. Treatment-seeking sample had larger intercepts, factor variances and covariances and factor means than non-treatment-seeking group.
The findings strongly contribute to the literature by showing how the type of groupings (treatment-seeking vs. non-treatment-seeking) moderates PTSD latent structure. It affirms the suggestion of Biehn et al. (2012) to be cautious in concluding the generalizability of PTSD models in the context that type of participants moderates PTSD's factor structure.
创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)的潜在结构话语在创伤文献中广泛存在。尽管研究结果一致否定了 DSM-IV-TR 的三因素模型,但替代模型仍在激烈争论中。本研究通过检验和比较三个最有效的 PTSD 模型(麻木模型、烦躁模型和烦躁觉醒模型)的 PTSD 因素结构,并确定这些模型是否适用于接触创伤事件的寻求治疗和未寻求治疗的菲律宾人,为这一讨论做出了贡献。
对 737 名寻求治疗(n=526)和未寻求治疗(n=211)的菲律宾人进行了菲律宾语版哈佛创伤问卷(HTQ;Mollica 等人,1992)的评估,这些人经历并目睹了各种创伤事件。进行了验证性因子分析(CFA),以确定最佳拟合模型和样本的可推广性。
结果表明,所有三个模型都具有极好的拟合度,在寻求治疗和未寻求治疗的样本中,烦躁觉醒模型的拟合度略好于麻木模型和烦躁模型。然而,一系列不变性测试表明,尽管烦躁觉醒模型的拟合度明显优于烦躁模型,但与麻木模型没有显著差异。结果表明,除了因子负荷外,两组在所有参数上均不可变。与未寻求治疗的组相比,寻求治疗的样本具有更大的截距、因子方差和协方差以及因子均值。
研究结果通过表明群体类型(寻求治疗与未寻求治疗)如何调节 PTSD 的潜在结构,为文献做出了重要贡献。这证实了 Biehn 等人(2012)的建议,即在参与者类型调节 PTSD 结构的背景下,谨慎得出 PTSD 模型的可推广性的结论。