Psychol Assess. 2019 Jan;31(1):113. doi: 10.1037/pas0000668. Epub 2018 Nov 29.
Reports an error in "Latent factor structure of posttraumatic stress disorder: Evaluation of method variance and construct validity of novel symptom clusters" by Daniel J. Lee, Michelle J. Bovin, Frank W. Weathers, Patrick A. Palmieri, Paula P. Schnurr, Denise M. Sloan, Terence M. Keane and Brian P. Marx (, Advanced Online Publication, Aug 16, 2018, np). In the article, the affiliations of multiple authors were incorrectly listed in the author byline and author note. For Daniel J. Lee, Michelle J. Bovin, Denise M. Sloan, Terence M. Keane, and Brian P. Marx, the affiliations should have read "National Center for PTSD, Boston, Massachusetts; VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts; and Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine." For author Paula P. Schnurr, the affiliations should have read "National Center for PTSD, White River Junction, Vermont; Department of Psychiatry, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth." All versions of this article have been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2018-39805-001.) The 4-factor model of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has demonstrated adequate fit in several confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) studies. Although several alternative measurement models have demonstrated better fit, there is no consensus yet on the best model, and newly proposed models lack sufficient construct validation. Notably, these studies have relied exclusively on questionnaire data, and thus their findings may be attributable to a method effect. This study examined the factor structure of PTSD symptoms using both questionnaire and interview data to determine the impact of assessment method on factor structure and construct validity of alternative model symptom clusters. Participants ( = 380) were veterans who completed the PTSD Checklist for (PCL-5; Weathers et al., 2013) and the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for (CAPS-5; Weathers et al., 2013). Fit was similar across models. However, the seven-factor Hybrid model (Armour et al., 2015) fit best. Limited evidence of a method effect was observed. Results of construct validity analyses were mixed; some of the newly proposed symptom clusters demonstrated hypothesized differential associations with external correlates, but others did not. These findings suggest that results of previous PTSD CFAs supporting the Hybrid model are not attributable to a method effect. However, observed limited difference in model fit and mixed construct validity evidence raise concerns regarding the value of parsing symptom clusters. Constructs implied by the new factors in the more complex measurement models of PTSD require greater explication and construct validation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
报告了一篇名为“创伤后应激障碍的潜在因素结构：新型症状群的方法偏差和结构效度评估”的文章中的错误，作者是 Daniel J. Lee、Michelle J. Bovin、Frank W. Weathers、Patrick A. Palmieri、Paula P. Schnurr、Denise M. Sloan、Terence M. Keane 和 Brian P. Marx（，高级在线发布，2018 年 8 月 16 日，np）。在这篇文章中，多位作者的联系方式在作者姓名和作者说明中错误列出。对于 Daniel J. Lee、Michelle J. Bovin、Denise M. Sloan、Terence M. Keane 和 Brian P. Marx，他们的联系应该是“国家创伤后应激障碍中心，马萨诸塞州波士顿；VA 波士顿医疗保健系统，马萨诸塞州波士顿；以及波士顿大学医学院精神病学系”。对于作者 Paula P. Schnurr，她的联系方式应该是“国家创伤后应激障碍中心，佛蒙特州怀特河交汇处；达特茅斯盖塞尔医学院精神病学系”。所有版本的文章都已更正。（原文摘要如下）创伤后应激障碍（PTSD）的 4 因素模型在几项验证性因素分析（CFA）研究中表现出了足够的拟合度。尽管有几种替代的测量模型表现出了更好的拟合度，但对于最佳模型还没有达成共识，并且新提出的模型缺乏足够的结构验证。值得注意的是，这些研究仅依赖于问卷调查数据，因此他们的发现可能归因于一种方法效应。本研究使用问卷和访谈数据来检验 PTSD 症状的因素结构，以确定评估方法对替代模型症状群结构和构念效度的影响。参与者（=380）是完成 PTSD 检查表（PCL-5；Weathers 等人，2013）和临床医生管理的 PTSD 量表（CAPS-5；Weathers 等人，2013）的退伍军人。模型拟合在所有模型中都相似。然而，七因素混合模型（Armour 等人，2015）拟合最佳。观察到有限的方法效应证据。结构有效性分析的结果喜忧参半；一些新提出的症状群与外部相关性表现出假设的差异关联，但其他症状群没有。这些发现表明，先前 PTSD CFA 支持混合模型的结果并不是归因于方法效应。然而，观察到模型拟合度差异有限和结构有效性证据混合，这引发了对解析 PTSD 症状群的价值的关注。需要进一步阐述和验证新的 PTSD 测量模型中更复杂因素结构所隐含的概念。（PsycINFO 数据库记录（c）2018 APA，保留所有权利）。
