Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Toward DSM-IV

Green, Bonnie L.; Lindy, Jacob D.; Grace, Mary C.

doi:10.1097/00005053-198507000-00004

Cited by 167 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…"Emotional constriction may well be the most common expression of PTSD, and the diagnosis is likely to be missed during this phase" (van der Kolk & Ducey, 1989). In addition, patients often present with symptoms which are not consciously linked to the traumatic event either by the patient or the therapist (Green et al, 1985;Horowitz, 1976;Scurfield, 1985). Most victims are ambivalent about discussing their traumata in their attempts to avoid the painful recollections.…”

Section: The Rorschach Test and Assessing Ptsdmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing Posttraumatic Stress Disorder with the Rorschach Projective Technique

Levin

1993

International Handbook of Traumatic Stress Syndromes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Rorschach Test and Assessing Ptsdmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Currently, there is much evidence that many kinds of "civilian" disasters (e.g., rape, violent assault, natural disasters, hostage situations, etc.) can produce a stress response (Green, Lindy, & Grace, 1985;Horowitz, 1976Horowitz, , 1985Krystal & Niederland, 1968;Sales, Baum, & Shore, 1984).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Posttraumatic Stress Disorder with the Rorschach Projective Technique

Levin

1993

International Handbook of Traumatic Stress Syndromes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Severity of exposure has been reported to be related to the development of PTSD systematically in a variety of traumatized populations (Brewin, Andrews, & Valentine, 2000) including, for example, earthquakes (Carr et al, 1997), fire , warfare (civilians: Jovic, Opacic, Knezevic, Tenjovic, & Lecic-Tosevski, 2002;combat veterans: Frye & Stockton, 1982), political imprisonment (Ehlers, Maercker, & Boos 2000), and sexual assault (Peters, 1988). A number of investigators have found severity of exposure to be the primary etiological factor in individual differences in response to stress (e.g., Davidson & Foa, 1991;Frye & Stockton, 1982;Green, Lindy, & Grace, 1985). In these studies, severity of traumatic exposure has been defined and measured in various ways.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Traumatic Exposure Severity Scale (TESS): A measure of exposure to major disasters

Elal

Slade

2005

J. Traum. Stress

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The debate about the role of the intensity of the stressor has occupied a central focus in posttraumatic stress disorder literature. There is currently a paucity of instruments with established psychometric properties measuring severity of trauma exposure in disaster survivors. The Traumatic Exposure Severity Scale was developed specifically to assess dimensions of exposure to an earthquake disaster in adults. Its 24 items assess a wide range of stressors organized into five subscales, derived from factor analyses: Resource Loss, Damage to Home and Goods, Personal Harm, Concern for Significant Others, and Exposure to the Grotesque. The scale provides both Occurrence and Distress scores. It has good internal reliability and validity. The instrument correlates significantly, but moderately, with a number of traumatic stress measures and the Beck Depression Index.

show abstract

“…As noted elsewhere (King, Vogt, & King, 2004), early calls for longitudinal methods in trauma research were offered by Green, Lindy, and Grace (1985), Denny, Rabinowitz, and Penk (1987) and Keane, Wolfe, and Taylor (1987). In a later review of the validity of causal inference in trauma research, King and King (1991) endorsed a lifespan perspective and proposed the use of thenavailable longitudinal methods to understand better the course of mental health sequelae to trauma exposure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterizing time in longitudinal trauma research

King

McArdle

et al. 2006

J. Traum. Stress

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the proliferation of longitudinal trauma research, careful attention to timing of assessments is often lacking. Patterns in timing of assessments, alternative time structures, and the treatment of time as an outcome are discussed and illustrated using trauma data.Over the past two decades, there has been increasing attention to the importance of prospective designs and longitudinal analytic strategies in the study of psychological trauma. As noted elsewhere (King, Vogt, & King, 2004), early calls for longitudinal methods in trauma research were offered by Green, Lindy, and Grace (1985), Denny, Rabinowitz, and Penk (1987) and Keane, Wolfe, and Taylor (1987). In a later review of the validity of causal inference in trauma research, King and King (1991) endorsed a lifespan perspective and proposed the use of thenavailable longitudinal methods to understand better the course of mental health sequelae to trauma exposure. To date, many major trauma research teams have incorporated repeated assessments of trauma victims postexposure and/or following treatment. For the most part, researchers have employed ordinary least squares regression, in which one's standing on a variable on one occasion (e.g., a trait assessed prior to exposure; severity of exposure or coping style assessed shortly after the trauma) predicts one's standing on outcomes at one or more later occasions. Prior status on the outcome may or may not be "controlled for" in predicting later status (see Gollob & Reichhardt, 1987, for cautions).Additionally, a few researchers have applied autoregressive models to evaluate the effect of one variable on change in another variable, with logic rooted in the cross-lagged panel design, in which the same variables are assessed on two or more occasions. Typically, the research question is the directionality of influence between or among the several variables in the crosslagged model: To what extent does one variable cause change in the other? As examples, see trauma research studies by King et al. (2000), Erickson, Wolfe, King, King, and Sharkansky (2001), Schell, Marshall, and Jaycox (2004), and King, Taft, King, Hammond, and Stone (in press). With the cross-lagged panel design, change is the deviation of one's observed outcome score on a later occasion from that predicted by one's earlier standing on that variable.A more direct yet controversial approach to assessing change is a simple difference between one's standing on a variable at a former occasion subtracted from one's standing on that variable at a later occasion. There have been decades of concern over the reliability of difference scores e.g., Cronbach & Furby, 1970;Humphreys, 1996), mostly owing to the assumption of equal dispersion of score distributions from which the difference is calculated. A stream of important research (e.g., Nesselroade & Cable, 1974;Sharma & Gupta, 1986;Williams & Zimmerman, 1996), however, has demonstrated that the concern may not be well founded. Therefore, a reliable direct assessment of change as a simple ...

show abstract

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Toward DSM-IV

Cited by 167 publications

References 0 publications

Assessing Posttraumatic Stress Disorder with the Rorschach Projective Technique

Assessing Posttraumatic Stress Disorder with the Rorschach Projective Technique

Traumatic Exposure Severity Scale (TESS): A measure of exposure to major disasters

Characterizing time in longitudinal trauma research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About