Cited by 156Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesSleep and related disorders

A systematic literature review of factor analytic and mixture models of ICD-11 PTSD and CPTSD using the International Trauma Questionnaire

Open access
Redican, Enya, Nolan, Emma, Hyland, Philip, Cloitre, Marylene, McBride, Orla, Karatzias, Thanos, Murphy, Jamie, Shevlin, Mark·2021·Journal of Anxiety Disorders

Abstract

The 11th version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11; WHO, 2018) describes two distinct trauma related disorders, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Complex PTSD (CPTSD). This review aims to summarise and synthesize evidence from factor analytic and mixture modelling studies that have investigated the latent structure of the International Trauma Questionnaire. A systematic search of PsycInfo, Web of Science, Scopus and Pubmed databases was conducted to identify relevant articles. Thirty-three studies met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The latent structure of the ITQ was best represented by two models; a correlated six-factor model (Re-experiencing, Avoidance, Threat, Affect Dysregulation, Negative Self Concept, and Disturbed Relationships) and a two-factor second-order model (PTSD and Disturbances in Self-Organization). Mixture model studies consistently identified distinct classes representing those displaying PTSD and CPTSD symptoms. Numerous studies demonstrated support for the factorial and discriminant validity of PTSD and CPTSD when analysed in conjunction with other variables. Overall, support was found for the conceptual coherence of PTSD and CPTSD as empirically distinguishable disorders, as measured by the ITQ. The available evidence demonstrates that the ITQ is a valid measure of ICD-11 PTSD and CPTSD. Recommendations for future research are included.

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 · 10.1016/j.janxdis.2021.102381

Cites

70 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 72 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Bisson, J. I., Berliner, L., Cloitre, M., Forbes, D., Jensen, T. K., Lewis, C., . . . Shapiro, F. (2019). Systematic review.
  2. Review.
  3. Bryant, R. A. (2019). Review. (continued on next page) (continued ) Author Reason for Exclusion
  4. Review.
  5. Hodes, M., & Vostanis, P. (2019). Practitioner review.
  6. Karatzias, T., Cloitre, M., Maercker, A., Kazlauskas, E., Shevlin, M., Hyland, P., ... & Brewin, C. R. (2020). Review.
  7. Review.
  8. Lotfinia, S., Soorgi, Z., Mertens, Y., & Daniels, J. (2020). Systematic review. Lotzin, A., & Schafer, I. (2019). In German -psycinfo.
  9. Olff, M., Amstadter, A., Armour, C., Birkeland, M. S., Bui, E., Cloitre, M., . . . Thoresen, S. (2019). Review/editorial.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Redican, E., Nolan, E., Hyland, P., Cloitre, M., McBride, O., Karatzias, T., Murphy, J., & Shevlin, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Ulster (GB)
  • National University of Ireland, Maynooth (IE)
  • Edinburgh Napier University (GB)
Corresponding author
Shevlin, Mark
Venue
Journal of Anxiety Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-04
Volume
79
Pages
102381
ISSN
0887-6185 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3133560980
Cited by
156
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 7
FWCI
3.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Anxiety Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ulster University Research Portal (Ulster University) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Maynooth University ePrints and eTheses Archive (Maynooth University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Napier Research Repository (Edinburgh Napier University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Department for the Economy
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
Keywords
post-traumatic stress disorder, complex PTSD, ICD-11, International Trauma Questionnaire, factor structure, mixture models, latent structure, discriminant validity, PTSD symptom clusters, affect dysregulation, trauma-related disorders
MeSH terms
Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Concept, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, International Classification of Diseases

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