德国版 DSM-5 (PDS-5) 创伤后诊断量表的心理测量特性和有效性。,European journal of psychotraumatology

当前位置： X-MOL 学术 › Eur J Psychotraumatol › 论文详情

Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)

德国版 DSM-5 (PDS-5) 创伤后诊断量表的心理测量特性和有效性。
European journal of psychotraumatology Pub Date : 2021-09-24 , DOI: 10.1080/20008198.2021.1965339
Lutz Wittmann ₁ , Aleksandar Dimitrijevic ₁ , Anke Ehlers ₂ , Edna B Foa ₃ , Henrik Kessler ₄ , Julia Schellong ₅ , Markus Burgmer _{6,

7}

Affiliation

背景用于评估创伤后应激障碍 (PTSD) 的心理测量仪器的可用性对于患有创伤相关痛苦的个人的临床和科学工作是必不可少的。目的本研究的目的是将 DSM-5 创伤后诊断量表 (PDS-5) 翻译成德语，并评估其心理测量特性以及收敛效度、判别效度和阶乘效度。方法 PDS-5 的授权德文翻译由 270 名在外伤专科门诊就诊的患者完成。其中，57.8% 的人第二次完成了 PDS（评估之间的平均时间为 12.0 天）。为了检验 PDS-5 的收敛效度和判别效度，应用了 DSM-5 的创伤后应激障碍清单以及评估抑郁症 (PHQ-9)、躯体化 (PHQ-15) 和广泛性焦虑症 (GAD-7) 的患者健康问卷分量表。结果 PDS-5 总分显示出极好的内部一致性 (α = .91) 和重测信度 (rho = .84)。与 DSM-5 的创伤后应激障碍清单总分的强相关性支持收敛效度 (PCL-5; rho = .91)。抑郁症 (rho = .81)、焦虑 (rho = .72) 和躯体化 (rho = .65) 与患者健康问卷分量表的相关性显着降低（所有 p < .001），表明 PDS-5 具有区分有效性。验证性因素分析并未导致对其中一个测试模型的明确偏好。与根据 PCL-5 进行的可能的 PTSD 诊断相比，根据 ROC 分析将诊断临界值定义为 ≥36 会导致高灵敏度 (.92) 和特异性 (.96)。结论总之，我们的结果表明，德语 PDS-5 翻译提供了有关 PTSD 严重性和诊断的有效且可靠的信息。

"点击查看英文标题和摘要"

Psychometric properties and validity of the German version of the Post-Traumatic Diagnostic Scale for DSM-5 (PDS-5).

Background The availability of psychometrically sound instruments for the assessment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is indispensable for clinical and scientific work with individuals suffering from trauma-related distress. Objective The aim of the present study was to translate the Post-Traumatic Diagnostic Scale for DSM-5 (PDS-5) into German and to evaluate its psychometric properties as well as convergent, discriminant, and factorial validity. Method The authorized German translation of the PDS-5 was completed by 270 patients admitted to specialized outpatient trauma clinics. Of these, 57.8% completed the PDS for a second time (mean time between assessments was 12.0 days). In order to examine convergent and discriminant validity of the PDS-5, the Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 as well as Patient Health Questionnaire subscales assessing depression (PHQ-9), somatization (PHQ-15), and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) were applied. Results The PDS-5 total score showed excellent internal consistency (α = .91) and re-test reliability (rho = .84). Convergent validity was supported by a strong correlation with the total score of the Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5; rho = .91). Correlations with Patient Health Questionnaire subscales of depression (rho = .81), anxiety (rho = .72), and somatization (rho = .65) were significantly lower (all p < .001) indicating discriminant validity of the PDS-5. Confirmative Factor Analysis did not result in a clear preference for one of the tested models. Defining a diagnostic cut-off value of ≥36 based on ROC analysis resulted in high sensitivity (.92) and specificity (.96) compared to a probable PTSD diagnosis according to the PCL-5. Conclusions In summary, our results indicate that the German PDS-5 translation provides valid and reliable information concerning both PTSD severity and diagnosis.

更新日期：2021-09-24

点击分享查看原文

点击收藏

公开下载