The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) is an extensively validated and widely used structured diagnostic interview for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The CAPS was recently revised to correspond with PTSD criteria in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). This article describes the development of the CAPS for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) and presents the results of an initial psychometric evaluation of CAPS-5 scores in 2 samples of military veterans (Ns = 165 and 207). CAPS-5 diagnosis demonstrated strong interrater reliability (к = .78 to 1.00, depending on the scoring rule) and test-retest reliability (к = .83), as well as strong correspondence with a diagnosis based on the CAPS for DSM-IV (CAPS-IV; к = .84 when optimally calibrated). CAPS-5 total severity score demonstrated high internal consistency (α = .88) and interrater reliability (ICC = .91) and good test-retest reliability (ICC = .78). It also demonstrated good convergent validity with total severity score on the CAPS-IV (r = .83) and PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (r = .66) and good discriminant validity with measures of anxiety, depression, somatization, functional impairment, psychopathy, and alcohol abuse (rs = .02 to .54). Overall, these results indicate that the CAPS-5 is a psychometrically sound measure of DSM-5 PTSD diagnosis and symptom severity. Importantly, the CAPS-5 strongly corresponds with the CAPS-IV, which suggests that backward compatibility with the CAPS-IV was maintained and that the CAPS-5 provides continuity in evidence-based assessment of PTSD in the transition from DSM-IV to DSM-5 criteria. (PsycINFO Database Record

No abstract

Background:Canadian public safety personnel (PSP; e.g., correctional workers, dispatchers, firefighters, paramedics, police officers) are exposed to potentially traumatic events as a function of their work. Such exposures contribute to the risk of developing clinically significant symptoms related to mental disorders. The current study was designed to provide estimates of mental disorder symptom frequencies and severities for Canadian PSP.Methods:An online survey was made available in English or French from September 2016 to January 2017. The survey assessed current symptoms, and participation was solicited from national PSP agencies and advocacy groups. Estimates were derived using well-validated screening measures.Results:There were 5813 participants (32.5% women) who were grouped into 6 categories (i.e., call center operators/dispatchers, correctional workers, firefighters, municipal/provincial police, paramedics, Royal Canadian Mounted Police). Substantial proportions of participants reported current symptoms consistent with 1 (i.e., 15.1%) or more (i.e., 26.7%) mental disorders based on the screening measures. There were significant differences across PSP categories with respect to proportions screening positive based on each measure.Interpretation:The estimated proportion of PSP reporting current symptom clusters consistent with 1 or more mental disorders appears higher than previously published estimates for the general population; however, direct comparisons are impossible because of methodological differences. The available data suggest that Canadian PSP experience substantial and heterogeneous difficulties with mental health and underscore the need for a rigorous epidemiologic study and category-specific solutions.

In recent years, several practice guidelines have appeared to inform clinical work in the assessment and treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder. Although there is a high level of consensus across these documents, there are also areas of apparent difference that may lead to confusion among those to whom the guidelines are targeted-providers, consumers, and purchasers of mental health services for people affected by trauma. The authors have been responsible for developing guidelines across three continents (North America, Europe, and Australia). The aim of this article is to examine the various guidelines and to compare and contrast their methodologies and recommendations to aid clinicians in making decisions about their use.