1989
DOI: 10.1097/00005053-198906000-00003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validity and Reliability of the DSM-III Criteria for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
121
1

Year Published

1990
1990
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 218 publications
(124 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
2
121
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The reliability of this questionnaire was good (Cronbach's α = .96). The sensitivity (86%) and specificity (80%) compared to a structured clinical interview (SI-PTSD; Davidson, Smith, & Kudler, 1989) were sufficient. The instrument was regarded as a good alternative to the structured interview for PTSD, particularly at sites that have limited clinical resources (Brewin, 2005;Carlier et al, 1998).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The reliability of this questionnaire was good (Cronbach's α = .96). The sensitivity (86%) and specificity (80%) compared to a structured clinical interview (SI-PTSD; Davidson, Smith, & Kudler, 1989) were sufficient. The instrument was regarded as a good alternative to the structured interview for PTSD, particularly at sites that have limited clinical resources (Brewin, 2005;Carlier et al, 1998).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Davidson's Structured Interview for PTSD (SI-PTSD;Davidson, Smith, & Kudler, 1989). This required the clinician to assess the severity and frequency of particular symptoms associated with the diagnostic criteria for PTSD using DSM-III-R. Davidson et al (1989) reported excellent diagnostic sensitivity and good specificity in comparison to other diagnostic interviews.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, participants had scored higher (i.e. worse) on the arousal subscale of the PSTD symptom checklist 147 (PTSD-SCL) than did non-participants, and this applied both pretreatment (participants 19.4 versus nonparticipants 17.7; 95% CI for difference 0.1 to 3.3), p = 0.048) and at 6-month follow-up (participants 12.7 versus non-participants 6.5; 95% CI 1.6 to 10.8, p = 0.010). Finally, participants had reported better social functioning at 6-month follow-up than non-participants on the Sheehan disability scale, in both their work (participants 4.8 versus 2.1; 95% CI for difference 0.1 to 5.3, p = 0.042) and family environments (participants 5.2 versus 2.2; 95% CI for difference 0.7 to 5.4, p = 0.013).…”
Section: The Ptsd Study (Trial 6)mentioning
confidence: 99%