We evaluated the accuracy of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depression (MD) diagnoses using brief assessment instruments conducted by phone. PTSD and MD were assessed by telephone interview in a randomly selected sample of Jewish and Palestinian residents of Jerusalem during a period of marked threat of terrorism and war (N=150). We utilized the PTSD Symptom Scale (Foa et al., 1993) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9; Kroenke et al., 2001). We then conducted in-depth, in-person interviews within two weeks, assessing PTSD and MD using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI; . The prevalence of PTSD and MD diagnosis ascertained by the two assessment modalities was similar. Indices of classification accuracy for the phone interview, using the in-person interview as the standard, ranged from modest to high. Brief phone and in-depth in-person measures of PTSD and MD also correlated similarly with other demographic, stress, and coping factors, suggesting convergent validity. Brief phone interviews appear useful for estimating the prevalence of For questions please contact the first authors at Stevan_hobfoll@Rush.edu or Dr. Stevan Hobfoll, Department of Behavioral Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, 1645 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL. 60612. The authors of this paper reported no conflict of interest regarding this study.
Publisher's Disclaimer:The following manuscript is the final accepted manuscript. It has not been subjected to the final copyediting, fact-checking, and proofreading required for formal publication. It is not the definitive, publisher-authenticated version. The American Psychological Association and its Council of Editors disclaim any responsibility or liabilities for errors or omissions of this manuscript version, any version derived from this manuscript by NIH, or other third parties. The published version is available at www.apa.org/pubs/journals/pas NIH Public Access Following the spread of terrorism around the world, and a spate of devastating natural disasters, there has been a rapid increase in research on communities affected by terrorism and mass casualty events (Bleich, Gelkopf, & Solomon, 2003;Bonanno, Galea, Bucciarelli, & Vlahov, 2006;Galea et al., 2002;Kessler et al., 2008;Miguel-Tobal et al., 2006;Norris et al., 2002;Schlenger et al., 2002;Schuster et al., 2001;Silver, Holman, McIntosh, Poulin, & Gil-Rivas, 2002). Such research is vital to our understanding of the public mental health impact of mass casualty and to assessing mental and physical health needs after these events (Kessler et al., 2008). Given the challenges that populations face in the aftermath of mass casualty events, brief, validated instruments that can assess psychopathology quickly and efficiently are essential (Connor, Foa, & Davidson, 2006).In an important commentary on the topic, North and Pfefferbaum (2002) outlined key recommendations and criticisms for methodology of research on mass casualty events. They specifically suggested that high rates of reported P...