Cited by 206Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPsychometric Methodologies and TestingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Developing an optimal short-form of the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5)

Open access
Zuromski, Kelly L., Ustun, Berk, Hwang, Irving, Keane, Terence M., Marx, Brian P., Stein, Murray B., Ursano, Robert J., Kessler, Ronald C.·2019·Depression and Anxiety

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although several short-forms of the posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) Checklist (PCL) exist, all were developed using heuristic methods. This report presents the results of analyses designed to create an optimal short-form PCL for DSM-5 (PCL-5) using both machine learning and conventional scale development methods. METHODS: The short-form scales were developed using independent datasets collected by the Army Study to Assess Risk and Resilience among Service members. We began by using a training dataset (n = 8,917) to fit short-form scales with between 1 and 8 items using different statistical methods (exploratory factor analysis, stepwise logistic regression, and a new machine learning method to find an optimal integer-scored short-form scale) to predict dichotomous PTSD diagnoses determined using the full PCL-5. A smaller subset of best short-form scales was then evaluated in an independent validation sample (n = 11,728) to select one optimal short-form scale based on multiple operating characteristics (area under curve [AUC], calibration, sensitivity, specificity, net benefit). RESULTS: Inspection of AUCs in the training sample and replication in the validation sample led to a focus on 4-item integer-scored short-form scales selected with stepwise regression. Brier scores in the validation sample showed that a number of these scales had comparable calibration (0.015-0.032) and AUC (0.984-0.994), but that one had consistently highest net benefit across a plausible range of decision thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended 4-item integer-scored short-form PCL-5 generates diagnoses that closely parallel those of the full PCL-5, making it well-suited for screening.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/da.22942

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Participants completed validated brief versions of common mental health instruments at baseline and 1-month follow-up.

    “Participants were also asked to complete symptom measures including a validated brief version of common mental health instruments, which included the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 [15], Interaction Anxiousness Scale-3 (IAS-3) [16], Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Checklist-4 [17], Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory-4 [18], and Washington Early Recognition Center Affectivity and Psychosis Screen”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 39 · Cited by 206

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Ustun B, & Rudin C (2017). Learning optimized risk scores on large-scale datasets. axriv.org, axriv: 1610.00168. Retreived from http://arxiv.org/abs/1610.00168 · arXiv

Authors
Zuromski, K. L., Ustun, B., Hwang, I., Keane, T. M., Marx, B. P., Stein, M. B., Ursano, R. J., & Kessler, R. C.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Boston University (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (US)
Corresponding author
Kessler, Ronald C.
Venue
Depression and Anxiety
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-07-29
Volume
36
Issue
9
Pages
790-800
ISSN
  • 1091-4269 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6394
OpenAlex
W2966264981
Cited by
206
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 9
FWCI
14.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Depression and Anxiety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Defense (HU0001‐15‐2‐0004)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
post-traumatic stress disorder, PCL-5, short-form scale development, PTSD screening, stepwise logistic regression, exploratory factor analysis, net benefit, military personnel
MeSH terms
Adult, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Military Personnel, Psychometrics, Sensitivity and Specificity, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Checklist

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review