Developing an optimal short-form of the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5)
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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”
From AI-Facilitated Cognitive Reappraisal via Socrates 2.0: Mixed Methods Feasibility Study. (2025) · cites this paper as [17]
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
- 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.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Depression and Anxiety
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-07-29
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 790-800
- ISSN
- 1091-4269 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6394
- PMC
- PMC6736721
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- 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