Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, Canada.
J Trauma Stress. 2021 Feb;34(1):56-68. doi: 10.1002/jts.22590. Epub 2020 Oct 1.
The debate around the construct validity of complex posttraumatic stress disorder (CPTSD) has begun to examine whether CPTSD diverges from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) when it co-occurs with the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD). The present study (a) examined the construct validity of CPTSD through a latent class analysis of a non-treatment-seeking sample of young trauma-exposed adults and (b) characterized each class in terms of trauma characteristics, social emotions (e.g., shame, guilt, blame), and interpersonal functioning. A total of 23 dichotomized survey items were chosen to represent the symptoms of PTSD, CPTSD, and BPD and administered to 197 trauma-exposed participants. Fit statistics compared models with 2-4 latent classes. The four-class model showed the best fit statistics and clinical interpretability. Classes included a "high PTSD+CPTSD+BPD" class, characterized by high-level endorsement of all symptoms for the three diagnoses; a "moderate PTSD+CPTSD+BPD" class, characterized by endorsement of some symptoms across all three diagnoses; a "PTSD" class, characterized by endorsement of the ICD-11 PTSD criteria; and a "healthy" class, characterized by low symptom endorsement overall. Pairwise comparisons showed individuals in the high PTSD+CPTSD+BPD class to have the highest levels of psychological distress, traumatic event history, adverse childhood experiences, and PTSD symptoms. Shame was the only social emotion to significantly differ between the classes, p = .002, η² = .16. The findings diverge from the literature, indicating an overlap of PTSD, CPTSD, and BPD symptoms in a non-treatment-seeking community sample. Further, shame may be a central emotion that differentiates between presentation severities following trauma exposure.
创伤后应激障碍(CPTSD)的结构效度争议已经开始探讨,CPTSD 是否与边缘型人格障碍(BPD)共病时与创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)有所不同。本研究(a)通过对年轻创伤暴露成年人的非治疗样本进行潜在类别分析,检验了 CPTSD 的结构效度;(b)根据创伤特征、社会情感(如羞耻、内疚、责备)和人际功能,描述了每个类别。共选择了 23 个二分调查项目来代表 PTSD、CPTSD 和 BPD 的症状,并对 197 名创伤暴露参与者进行了评估。拟合统计数据比较了具有 2-4 个潜在类别的模型。四类别模型显示出最佳的拟合统计数据和临床可解释性。类别包括一个“高 PTSD+CPTSD+BPD”类别,其特征是对所有三种诊断的所有症状都有较高的认可;一个“中度 PTSD+CPTSD+BPD”类别,其特征是对所有三种诊断都有一些症状的认可;一个“PTSD”类别,其特征是符合 ICD-11 PTSD 标准;以及一个“健康”类别,其特征是总体症状认可程度较低。两两比较显示,高 PTSD+CPTSD+BPD 类别的个体心理困扰、创伤事件史、不良童年经历和 PTSD 症状水平最高。羞耻是唯一在类别之间存在显著差异的社会情感,p =.002,η² =.16。这些发现与文献不一致,表明在非治疗寻求的社区样本中,PTSD、CPTSD 和 BPD 症状存在重叠。此外,羞耻可能是区分创伤暴露后表现严重程度的核心情感。