Validity issues in research on Vietnam veteran adjustment.

Abstract

For 2 decades America's Vietnam veterans have been viewed as presenting special problems, and researchers from various disciplines have attempted to understand the network of cause-and-effect relationships accounting for their psychosocial status. In this article, Cook and Campbell's (1979) framework is used to examine validity issues in Vietnam veteran research. Threats to each of the types of validity (statistical conclusion, internal, construct, and external) are discussed using examples from the literature. To counteract these threats and strengthen future research, 7 recommendations are offered.

A High Risk Twin Study of Combat-Related PTSD Comorbidity

“…Furthermore, previous studies have not been able to identify an adequate control group for veterans with PTSD (King & King, 1991). The ideal control group would be made of individuals who are like the veterans with PTSD in every way -except that they were not exposed to combat.…”

Risk factors for mental, physical, and functional health in Gulf War veterans

“…A large body of professional and scientific literature has examined the vulnerability and protective factors related to the health and well-being of military veterans who have served in our wars [1][2][3]. Much of the research in this arena has concentrated on the influence of combat exposure as it relates to mental distress and longer-term mental disability, primarily symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) [4], as well as comorbid mental health entities, such as symptoms of depression [5], symptoms of anxiety [6], substance abuse [7], and violent behavior [8].…”

Vietnam in the Later Family: Self-reported Symptoms and Interpretations of Posttraumatic Stress

“…Nearly a third of the hundreds of thousands of heavy combat veterans from the Vietnam War suffered from severe PTSD (King & King, 1991). Vietnam veterans were particularly vulnerable to stress symptoms because of the length of the war, deployment patterns, guerilla tactics, the perceived lack of purpose, and the increasing unpopularity of the war, often resulting in veterans being treated with contempt.…”

“…King and King (1991) reviewed the literature that suggests that socioeconomic status influenced both military service and combat deployment. Minorities and men from lower socioeconomic levels were more likely to be in the Marines and the Army, and thus more likely to engage in ground battle.…”