Institute of Psychology, University of Münster, Fliednerstrasse 21, 48149, Münster, Germany.
Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Free University Berlin, 14195, Berlin, Germany.
BMC Psychiatry. 2017 Nov 28;17(1):379. doi: 10.1186/s12888-017-1541-6.
The Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Checklist (PCL, now PCL-5) has recently been revised to reflect the new diagnostic criteria of the disorder.
A clinical sample of trauma-exposed individuals (N = 352) was assessed with the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) and the PCL-5. Internal consistencies and test-retest reliability were computed. To investigate diagnostic accuracy, we calculated receiver operating curves. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were performed to analyze the structural validity.
Results showed high internal consistency (α = .95), high test-retest reliability (r = .91) and a high correlation with the total severity score of the CAPS-5, r = .77. In addition, the recommended cutoff of 33 on the PCL-5 showed high diagnostic accuracy when compared to the diagnosis established by the CAPS-5. CFAs comparing the DSM-5 model with alternative models (the three-factor solution, the dysphoria, anhedonia, externalizing behavior and hybrid model) to account for the structural validity of the PCL-5 remained inconclusive.
Overall, the findings show that the German PCL-5 is a reliable instrument with good diagnostic accuracy. However, more research evaluating the underlying factor structure is needed.
创伤后应激障碍 (PTSD) 检查表 (PCL，现称 PCL-5) 最近进行了修订，以反映该障碍的新诊断标准。
对一组有创伤暴露史的个体（N=352）进行了 DSM-5 临床医师管理创伤后应激障碍量表 (CAPS-5) 和 PCL-5 的评估。计算了内部一致性和重测信度。为了研究诊断准确性，我们计算了受试者工作特征曲线。进行验证性因素分析 (CFA) 以分析结构效度。
结果显示，该量表具有较高的内部一致性 (α=.95)、较高的重测信度 (r=.91)，与 CAPS-5 的总严重程度评分高度相关，r=.77。此外，与 CAPS-5 确定的诊断相比，PCL-5 的 33 分推荐截断值显示出较高的诊断准确性。CFAs 比较了 DSM-5 模型与替代模型（三因素解决方案、抑郁、快感缺失、外化行为和混合模型），以说明 PCL-5 的结构效度，结果仍不确定。
总体而言，研究结果表明，德文版 PCL-5 是一种具有良好诊断准确性的可靠工具。然而，需要更多评估其潜在因素结构的研究。
