Cited by 365Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchChild Abuse and TraumaPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology

A critical evaluation of the complex PTSD literature: Implications for DSM‐5

Resick, Patricia A., Bovin, Michelle J., Calloway, Amber L., Dick, Alexandra M., King, Matthew W., Mitchell, Karen S., Suvak, Michael K., Wells, Stephanie Y. +2 more·2012·Journal of Traumatic Stress

Abstract

Complex posttraumatic stress disorder (CPTSD) has been proposed as a diagnosis for capturing the diverse clusters of symptoms observed in survivors of prolonged trauma that are outside the current definition of PTSD. Introducing a new diagnosis requires a high standard of evidence, including a clear definition of the disorder, reliable and valid assessment measures, support for convergent and discriminant validity, and incremental validity with respect to implications for treatment planning and outcome. In this article, the extant literature on CPTSD is reviewed within the framework of construct validity to evaluate the proposed diagnosis on these criteria. Although the efforts in support of CPTSD have brought much needed attention to limitations in the trauma literature, we conclude that available evidence does not support a new diagnostic category at this time. Some directions for future research are suggested.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jts.21699

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • A recent review identified a potential symptom overlap such that the complex PTSD symptom set may not represent a distinct diagnosis but rather the presence of PTSD comorbid with borderline personality disorder (BPD).

    “Finally, a recent review (Resick et al., 2012) has identified a potential symptom overlap such that the complex PTSD symptom set may not represent a distinct diagnosis but rather the presence of PTSD comorbid with borderline personality disorder (BPD).”

    From Evidence for proposed ICD-11 PTSD and complex PTSD: a latent profile analysis (2013) · cites this paper as Resick et al., 2012

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Resick, P. A., Bovin, M. J., Calloway, A. L., Dick, A. M., King, M. W., Mitchell, K. S., Suvak, M. K., Wells, S. Y., Stirman, S. W., & Wolf, E. J.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • VA Boston Healthcare System (US)
  • Suffolk University (US)
Corresponding author
Resick, Patricia A.
Venue
Journal of Traumatic Stress
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-06
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
241-251
ISSN
  • 0894-9867 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6598
OpenAlex
W2092378189
Cited by
365
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 10
FWCI
4.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Traumatic Stress (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
Keywords
complex PTSD, DSM-5, diagnostic validity, construct validity, incremental validity, PTSD diagnosis, convergent and discriminant validity, evaluation metrics
MeSH terms
Humans, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, United States, Reproducibility of Results, Evidence-Based Medicine, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

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