Alternative models of DSM-5 PTSD: Examining diagnostic implications.

Siobhan Murphy, Maj Hansen, Ask Elklit, Yoke Yong Chen, Siti Raudzah Ghazali, Mark Shevlin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The factor structure of DSM-5 posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been extensively debated with evidence supporting the recently proposed seven-factor Hybrid model. However, despite myriad studies examining PTSD symptom structure few have assessed the diagnostic implications of these proposed models. This study aimed to generate PTSD prevalence estimates derived from the 7 alternative factor models and assess whether pre-established risk factors associated with PTSD (e.g., transportation accidents and sexual victimisation) produce consistent risk estimates. Seven alternative models were estimated within a confirmatory factor analytic framework using the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). Data were analysed from a Malaysian adolescent community sample (n = 481) of which 61.7% were female, with a mean age of 17.03 years. The results indicated that all models provided satisfactory model fit with statistical superiority for the Externalising Behaviours and seven-factor Hybrid models. The PTSD prevalence estimates varied substantially ranging from 21.8% for the DSM-5 model to 10.0% for the Hybrid model. Estimates of risk associated with PTSD were inconsistent across the alternative models, with substantial variation emerging for sexual victimisation. These findings have important implications for research and practice and highlight that more research attention is needed to examine the diagnostic implications emerging from the alternative models of PTSD.
Original languageEnglish
JournalPsychiatry Research
VolumePsychiatry Research
Early online date09 Sep 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01 Apr 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Alternative models of DSM-5 PTSD: Examining diagnostic implications.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this