↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist Instruments From Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition vs Fifth Edition in a Large Cohort of US Military Service…

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Network Open, April 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist Instruments From Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition vs Fifth Edition in a Large Cohort of US Military Service Members and Veterans
Published in
JAMA Network Open, April 2021
DOI 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.8072
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cynthia A. LeardMann, Hope Seib McMaster, Steven Warner, Alejandro P. Esquivel, Ben Porter, Teresa M. Powell, Xin M. Tu, William W. Lee, Rudolph P. Rull, Charles W. Hoge, Satbir K. Boparai, Felicia R. Carey, Sheila F. Castañeda, Toni Rose T. Geronimo-Hara, Isabel G. Jacobson, Claire A. Kolaja, Rayna K. Matsuno, Deanne C. Millard, Anna C. Rivera, Beverly D. Sheppard, Daniel W. Trone, Jennifer L. Walstrom

Abstract

The definition of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) changed markedly between the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) and DSM-5, creating challenges for studies and in medical settings spanning this transition. To evaluate the ability to compare and assess PTSD, based on DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria, using PTSD Checklists (PCLs). This diagnostic study was conducted with survey data collected in October 2019, from the Millennium Cohort Study, a population-based US military cohort study. The population for the present study was restricted to a subset of initial web responders of the 2019 survey cycle, randomly assigned to 1 of 4 survey groups. Each group received the DSM-IV and DSM-5 PCL (PCL-Civilian [PCL-C] version and PCL for DSM-5 [PCL-5]). PCL instruments were counterbalanced to control for order effects. Survey data were used to assess PTSD (using the PCL-C and PCL-5), major depressive disorder (using the Patient Health Questionnaire), generalized anxiety (using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale), and problem drinking (using the Patient Health Questionnaire). Demographic and military characteristics included age, sex, race/ethnicity, marital status, education, service branch, pay grade, enrollment panel, and military service status. Among the 1921 participants (mean [SD] age, 50.1 [12.5] years), 1358 (70.7%) were men, 1638 (85.3%) were non-Hispanic White individuals, 1440 (75.0%) were married, and 1190 (61.9%) had at least a bachelor's degree; 295 (15.4%) had probable PTSD according to DSM-IV criteria with PCL-C compared with 286 (14.9%) using DSM-5 criteria with PCL-5 (κ = 0.77). There was substantial agreement between PCLs for probable PTSD based on DSM-IV criteria (295 [15.4%] with PCL-C; 316 [16.4%] with PCL-5; κ = 0.80) and DSM-5 criteria (286 [14.9%] with PCL-5; 258 [13.4%] with PCL-C; κ = 0.77). Estimated PTSD sum scores showed excellent agreement with observed scores. Using an established crosswalk, PCL-5 sum scores estimated with the PCL-C were similar to observed PCL-5 scores. Of the 17 corresponding items between the 2 instruments, 16 had substantial agreement. Appending 2 additional PCL-C items to the PCL-5 did not significantly alter estimates. The PCL-C and PCL-5 had nearly identical associations with comorbid conditions. The findings of this diagnostic study suggest that PTSD can be successfully assessed and compared over time with either PCL instrument in veteran and military populations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 10%
Professor 1 10%
Unknown 4 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 10%
Sports and Recreations 1 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 10%
Unknown 3 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 June 2021.
All research outputs
#1,384,598
of 18,838,632 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Network Open
#2,743
of 4,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,767
of 332,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Network Open
#209
of 269 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,838,632 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 108.5. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,195 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 269 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.