Development and Evaluation of the Dutch Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5).
Development and Evaluation of the Dutch Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5).
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/20008198.2018.1546085
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Olff M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Boeschoten MA;Van der Aa N;Bakker A;Ter Heide FJJ;Hoofwijk MC;Jongedijk RA;Van Minnen A;Elzinga BM;Olff M
背景：2013年，临床医生-管理者PTSD量表（评估PTSD的金标准）适用于DSM-5（CAPS-5）。目的：本项目旨在开发一个临床相关的荷兰语翻译的CAPS-5，并调查其心理测量学特性。方法：我们对44名荷兰精神创伤专家和5名高级精神创伤专家进行了包括德尔菲轮在内的分步翻译。使用部分群众翻译，两个专业翻译和DSM-5的荷兰官方翻译，每个高级专家汇总一个独立的翻译。全体会议达成共识。经过回译、与原始CAPS-5的比较和实地测试，与高级专家进行了最后一轮的最终版本。实施后，临床医生进行了CAPS-5采访669创伤暴露的个人转介专门的诊断评估。荷兰CAPS-5的可靠性进行了调查，通过内部一致性和评分员间的信度分析，结构效度通过验证性因素分析（CFA）。结果：CAPS-5严重程度总分显示出较高的内部一致性（α = .90）和评分者间可靠性（ICC = .98，95%CI：.94-.99）。CAPS-5诊断显示出中等的评价者间可靠性（kappa = 0.59，95%CI：0.20 - 0.98）。CFA与其他PTSD模型显示，DSM-5四因素模型有足够的支持，但六因素（快感缺失）模型最适合数据。结论：荷兰CAPS-5是一个精心翻译的工具，具有足够的心理测量特性。目前的研究结果增加了对DSM-5 PTSD的更精细（6和7）因素模型的支持，表明这些模型的有效性和临床意义应该是进一步研究的目标。
Background: In 2013, the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale, the golden standard to assess PTSD, was adapted to the DSM-5 (CAPS-5). Objective: This project aimed to develop a clinically relevant Dutch translation of the CAPS-5 and to investigate its psychometric properties. Method: We conducted a stepped translation including Delphi rounds with a crowd of 44 Dutch psychotrauma experts and five senior psychotrauma experts. Using partial crowd-translations, two professional translations and the official Dutch translation of the DSM-5, each senior expert aggregated one independent translation. Consensus was reached plenary. After back-translation, comparison with the original CAPS-5 and field testing, a last round with the senior experts resulted in the final version. After implementation clinicians conducted CAPS-5 interviews with 669 trauma-exposed individuals referred for specialized diagnostic assessment. Reliability of the Dutch CAPS-5 was investigated through internal consistency and interrater reliability analyses, and construct validity through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results: CAPS-5 total severity score showed high internal consistency (α = .90) and interrater reliability (ICC = .98, 95% CI: .94–.99). CAPS-5 diagnosis showed modest interrater reliability (kappa = .59, 95% CI: .20–.98). CFA with alternative PTSD models revealed adequate support for the DSM-5 four-factor model, but a six-factor (Anhedonia) model fit the data best. Conclusions: The Dutch CAPS-5 is a carefully translated instrument with adequate psychometric properties. Current results add to the growing support for more refined (six and seven) factor models for DSM-5 PTSD indicating that the validity and clinical implications of these models should be objective of further research.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1080/10705519909540118
发表时间：
1999-01-01
影响因子：
6
作者：
Hu, Li-tze;Bentler, Peter M.
通讯作者：
Bentler, Peter M.
影响因子：
3.3
作者：
Friedman, Matthew J.
通讯作者：
Friedman, Matthew J.
影响因子：
3.6
作者：
Clark, LA;Watson, D
通讯作者：
Watson, D
影响因子：
6.9
作者：
Elhai, Jon D.;Ford, Julian D.;Frueh, B. Christopher
通讯作者：
Frueh, B. Christopher
影响因子：
4.8
作者：
Armour, Cherie;Tsai, Jack;Pietrzak, Robert H.
通讯作者：
Pietrzak, Robert H.