Does size really matter? A multisite study assessing the latent structure of the proposed ICD-11 and DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for PTSD. (15th December 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hansen, Maj; Hyland, Philip; Karstoft, Karen-Inge; Vaegter, Henrik B.; Bramsen, Rikke H.; Nielsen, Anni B. S.; Armour, Cherie; Andersen, Søren B.; Høybye, Mette Terp; Larsen, Simone Kongshøj; Andersen, Tonny E.
• Is Part Of: European journal of psychotraumatology. Volume 8(2017)Supplement 7
• Publication Date: 2017-12-15
• Subjects: PTSD -- DSM-5 -- ICD-11 -- CFA -- diagnosis; TEPT -- DSM-5 -- CIE-11 -- CFA -- DIAGNÓSTICO; PTSD -- DSM-5 -- ICD-11 -- CFA -- 诊断; What is the impact of using a large description of PTSD (i.e. the DSM-5) compared to a small description of PTSD (i.e. the ICD-11 proposal)? In other words, does the size of PTSD really matter? The present multisite study compares diagnostic rates and model fit of competing DSM-5 and ICD-11 models of PTSD across pain patients, military personnel, and trauma-exposed university students (N = 4213). The results show that the choice of diagnostic system may influence the estimated PTSD rates both qualitatively and quantitatively. Thus, the size of PTSD does matter. The proposed ICD-11 three-factor model provided the best fit of the tested ICD-11 models across all samples. The DSM-5 seven-factor Hybrid model and the DSM-5 six-factor Anhedonia model provided the best fit of the tested DSM-5 models.; Post-traumatic stress disorder -- Periodicals; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Post-traumatic stress disorder; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; Periodicals; 616.8521
• DOI: 10.1080/20008198.2017.1398002
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2000-8198

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Background : Researchers and clinicians within the field of trauma have to choose between different diagnostic descriptions of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the DSM-5 and the proposed ICD-11. Several studies support different competing models of the PTSD structure according to both diagnostic systems; however, findings show that the choice of diagnostic systems can affect the estimated prevalence rates. Objectives : The present study aimed to investigate the potential impact of using a large (i.e. the DSM-5) compared to a small (i.e. the ICD-11) diagnostic description of PTSD. In other words, does the size of PTSD really matter? Methods: The aim was investigated by examining differences in diagnostic rates between the two diagnostic systems and independently examining the model fit of the competing DSM-5 and ICD-11 models of PTSD across three trauma samples: university students ( N = 4213), chronic pain patients ( N = 573), and military personnel ( N = 118). Results : Diagnostic rates of PTSD were significantly lower according to the proposed ICD-11 criteria in the university sample, but no significant differences were found for chronic pain patients and military personnel. The proposed ICD-11 three-factor model provided the best fit of the tested ICD-11 models across all samples, whereas the DSM-5 seven-factor Hybrid model provided the best fit in the university and pain samples, and the DSM-5 six-factor Anhedonia model provided the best fit in the military sample of the tested DSM-5 models. Conclusions : The advantages and disadvantages of using a broad or narrow set of symptoms for PTSD can be debated, however, this study demonstrated that choice of diagnostic system may influence the estimated PTSD rates both qualitatively and quantitatively. In the current described diagnostic criteria only the ICD-11 model can reflect the configuration of symptoms satisfactorily. Thus, size does matter when assessing PTSD.