Validation of a clinician-administered diagnostic measure of ICD-11 PTSD and Complex PTSD: the International Trauma Interview in a Swedish sample

Abstract

Background:The recently published ICD-11 includes substantial changes to the diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and introduces the diagnosis of Complex PTSD (CPTSD). The International Trauma Interview (ITI) has been developed for clinicians to assess these new diagnoses but has not yet been evaluated. Objectives: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the Swedish translation of the ITI by examining the interrater agreement, latent structure, internal consistency, and convergent and discriminant validity. Methods: In a prospective study, 186 adults who had experienced a potentially traumatic event were assessed with the ITI and answered questionnaires for symptoms of posttraumatic stress, other psychiatric disorders, functional disability, and quality of life (QoL). Results: The diagnostic rate was 16% for PTSD and 6% for CPTSD. Interrater agreement was satisfactory (α = .76), and confirmatory factor analysis indicated that a two-factor second-20 order model consistent with the ICD-11 model of CPTSD provided acceptable fit to the data. Composite reliability analysis demonstrated that the ITI possessed acceptable internal reliability, and associations with measures of other psychiatric disorders, insomnia, functional disability, and QoL supported the concurrent validity of the ITI. Conclusion: Swedish ITI shows promise as a clinician-administered instrument to assess and diagnose ICD-11 PTSD and CPTSD. 验证一个ICD-11PTSD和复杂型PTSD的临床诊断工具：瑞典样本中的国际 创伤访谈目的：最近公布的ICD-11对创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)诊断进行了重大修改，并引入了复 杂型PTSD(CPTSD)的诊断。国际创伤访谈(ITI)可以为临床医生使用于评估这些新的 诊断，但尚未得到评估。本研究的目的是通过考察评分者一致性、潜在结构、内部一致 性、聚合和区分效度来评估瑞典语版本ITI的心理测量属性。 ARTICLE HISTORY

Validation of ICD-11 PTSD and DSO using the International Trauma Questionnaire in five clinical samples recruited in Denmark

“…Standardized coefficients above 1 frequently occur in cases of multicollinearity but is not necessarily indicative of model misspecification (Deegan, 1978 ). Similar findings have previously been reported in an Asian sample (Ho et al, 2020 ) and a Swedish sample using the International Trauma Interview (Bondjers et al, 2019 ). The factor loadings were statistically significant and acceptable in size, apart from the item of recurrent nightmares in the sample of women in shelters that displayed a low factor loading (.232) that is inconsistent with theoretical considerations and existing empirical evidence (Brewin et al, 2017 ; Karatzias et al, 2016 ).…”

Trauma, PTSD, and complex PTSD in the Republic of Ireland: prevalence, service use, comorbidity, and risk factors

“…Of course, all of these figures have been obtained using self-report assessment methods and it is well established that self-report measures produce higher prevalence estimates of trauma-related disorders compared to clinician-administered diagnostic interviews [29]. A diagnostic interview for ICD-11 PTSD and CPTSD -the International Trauma Interview (ITI) -is under development [30], and an important next step will be to estimate the prevalence of these disorders using this tool. The true number of people in the population suffering from PTSD and CPTSD is likely to fall somewhere between the estimates obtained from self-reports and diagnostic interviews, therefore, collection of such data should be a priority for future research.…”

“…Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios for the associations between each risk factor and PTSD and CPTSD (N = 1,020). 30,. 1.69)*** 1.28 (1.09, 1.50)** 1.58 (1.41, 1.78)*** 1.50 (1.30, 1.72)*** Number of adolescent traumas 1.29 (1.12, 1.49)*** 1.01 (0.84, 1.21) 1.39 (1.25, 1.55)*** 1.17 (1.02, 1.35)* Number of adulthood traumas 1.29 (1.11, 1.48)** 1.31 (1.12, 1.52)*** 1.22 (1.08, 1.38)** 1.31 (1.14, 1.50)***…”

Screening for consequences of trauma – an update on the global collaboration on traumatic stress

“…Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5; Blevins, Weathers, Davis, Witte, & Domino, 2015;Brewin et al, 2002;Mouthaan, Sijbrandij, Reitsma, Gersons, & Olff, 2014;Prins et al, 2016;Sijbrandij, Olff, Opmeer, Carlier, & Gersons, 2008;Weiss & Marmar, 1997), for complex PTSD (International Trauma Questionnaire, Bondjers et al, 2019;Cloitre et al, 2018;Shevlin et al, 2018); or acute reactions (Peritraumatic Dissociative Experiences Questionnaire, Peritraumatic Distress inventory; Brunet et al, 2001), or for psychological resilience (Van der Meer et al, 2018) the GC-TS is not aware of brief screening instruments including these various reactions simultaneously, while also including assessment of important well-established risk and protective factors.…”