BackgroundThe Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Checklist (PCL, now PCL-5) has recently been revised to reflect the new diagnostic criteria of the disorder.MethodsA 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.ResultsResults 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.ConclusionsOverall, 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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12888-017-1541-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Recently, changes have been introduced to the diagnostic criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Objectives:This study investigated the effect of the diagnostic changes made from DSM-IV to DSM-5 and from ICD-10 to the proposed ICD-11. The concordance of provisional PTSD prevalence between the diagnostic criteria was examined in a convenience sample of 100 members of the German Armed Forces. Method: Based on questionnaire measurements, provisional PTSD prevalence was assessed according to DSM-IV, DSM-5, ICD-10, and proposed ICD-11 criteria. Consistency of the diagnostic status across the diagnostic systems was statistically evaluated. Results: Provisional PTSD prevalence was the same for DSM-IV and DSM-5 (both 56%) and comparable under DSM-5 versus ICD-11 proposal (48%). Agreement between DSM-IV and DSM-5, and between DSM-5 and the proposed ICD-11, was high (both p < .001). Provisional PTSD prevalence was significantly increased under ICD-11 proposal compared to ICD-10 (30%) which was mainly due to the deletion of the time criterion. Agreement between ICD-10 and the proposed ICD-11 was low (p = .014). Conclusion: This study provides preliminary evidence for a satisfactory concordance between provisional PTSD prevalence based on the diagnostic criteria for PTSD that are defined using DSM-IV, DSM-5, and proposed ICD-11. This supports the assumption of a set of PTSD core symptoms as suggested in the ICD-11 proposal, when at the same time a satisfactory concordance between ICD-11 proposal and DSM was given. The finding of increased provisional PTSD prevalence under ICD-11 proposal in contrast to ICD-10 can be of guidance for future epidemiological research on PTSD prevalence, especially concerning further investigations on the impact, appropriateness, and usefulness of the time criterion included in ICD-10 versus the consequences of its deletion as proposed for ICD-11.

Background: A diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) requires the identification of one or more traumatic events, designated the index trauma, which serves as the basis for assessment of severity of PTSD. In patients who have experienced more than one traumatic event, severity may depend on the exact definition of the index trauma. Defining the index trauma as the worst single incident may result in PTSD severity scores that differ from what would be seen if the index trauma included multiple events.Objective: This study aimed to investigate the impact of the definition of the index trauma on PTSD baseline severity scores and treatment outcome.Method: A planned secondary analysis was performed on data from a subset (N = 58) of patients enrolled in a trial evaluating the efficacy of a 12 week residential dialectical behavioural therapy programme for PTSD related to childhood abuse (DBT-PTSD). Assessments of the severity of PTSD were conducted at admission, at the end of the 12 week treatment period, and at 6 and 12 weeks post-treatment, using the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale. The index trauma was defined with respect to both the worst single incident and up to three qualitatively distinct traumatic events.Results: When the index trauma included multiple traumas, PTSD severity scores were significantly higher and improvements from pre- to post-treatment were significantly lower than when the index trauma was defined as the worst single incident.Conclusions: In patients with PTSD who have experienced multiple traumas, defining the index trauma as the worst single incident may miss some aspects of clinically relevant symptomatology, thereby leading to a possibly biased interpretation of treatment effects. In DBT-PTSD, treatment effects were lower when the index trauma included multiple traumatic events. More research is needed to determine the impact of the various index trauma definitions on the evaluation of other trauma-focused treatments.

Background: The proposed ICD-11 criteria for trauma-related disorders define posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and complex posttraumatic stress disorder (cPTSD) as separate disorders. Results of previous studies support the validity of this concept. However, due to limitations of existing studies (e.g. homogeneity of the samples), the present study aimed to test the construct validity and factor structure of cPTSD and its distinction from PTSD using a heterogeneous trauma-exposed sample. Method: Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were conducted to explore the factor structure of the proposed ICD-11 cPTSD diagnosis in a sample of 341 trauma-exposed adults (n = 191 female, M = 37.42 years, SD = 12.04). In a next step, latent profile analyses (LPAs) were employed to evaluate predominant symptom profiles of cPTSD symptoms. Results: The results of the CFA showed that a six-factor structure (i.e. symptoms of intrusion, avoidance, hyperarousal and symptoms of affective dysregulation, negative self-concept, and interpersonal problems) fits the data best. According to LPA, a four-class solution optimally characterizes the data. Class 1 represents moderate PTSD and low symptoms in the specific cPTSD clusters (PTSD group, 30.4%). Class 2 showed low symptom severity in all six clusters (low symptoms group, 24.1%). Classes 3 and 4 both exhibited cPTSD symptoms but differed with respect to the symptom severity (Class 3: cPTSD, 34.9% and Class 4: severe cPTSD, 10.6%). Conclusions: The findings replicate previous studies supporting the proposed factor structure of cPTSD in ICD-11. Additionally, the results support the validity and usefulness of conceptualizing PTSD and cPTSD as discrete mental disorders.

Background A dissociative subtype of posttraumatic stress disorder (D-PTSD) was introduced into the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) but latent profiles and clinical correlates of D-PTSD remain controversial. Objective The aims of our study were to identify subgroups of individuals with distinct patterns of PTSD symptoms, including dissociative symptoms, by means of latent class analyses (LCA), to compare these results with the categorization of D-PTSD vs. PTSD without dissociative features according to the CAPS-5 interview, and to explore whether D-PTSD is associated with higher PTSD severity, difficulties in emotion regulation, and depressive symptoms. Method A German sample of treatment-seeking individuals was investigated ( N = 352). We conducted an LCA on the basis of symptoms of PTSD and dissociation as assessed by the CAPS-5. Moreover, severity of PTSD (PCL-5), difficulties in emotion regulation (DERS), and depressive symptoms (BDI-II) were compared between patients with D-PTSD according to the CAPS-5 interview and patients without dissociative symptoms. Results LCA results suggested a 5-class model with one subgroup showing the highest probability to fulfill criteria for the dissociative subtype and high scores on both BDI and DERS. Significantly higher scores on the DERS, BDI and PCL-5 were found in the D-PTSD group diagnosed with the CAPS-5 ( n = 75; 35.7%). Sexual trauma was also reported more often by this subgroup. When comparing the dissociative subtype to the LCA results, only a partial overlap could be found. Conclusions Our findings suggest that patients with D-PTSD have significantly more problems with emotion regulation, more depressive symptoms, and more severe PTSD-symptoms. Given the results of our LCA, we conclude that the dissociative subtype seems to be more complex than D-PTSD as diagnosed by means of the CAPS-5.