CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 262Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPsychometric Methodologies and TestingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Checklist for DSM–5: A systematic review of existing psychometric evidence.

Open access
Forkus, Shannon R., Raudales, Alexa M., Rafiuddin, Hanan S., Weiss, Nicole H., Messman, Brett A., Contractor, Ateka A.·2023·Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice
DOI 10.1037/cps0000111PMC PMC10292741
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) is a widely used self-rated measure of DSM-5 PTSD symptoms. The goal of this systematic review was to synthesize research on the psychometric properties of the PCL-5 to guide clinical and research applications. We focused on reliability, validity, factor structure, optimal cutoff scores, and sensitivity to clinical change indices. A systematic review of the literature following PRISMA guidelines was conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and PTSDpubs with search terms capturing selected psychometric indices of the PCL-5. The inclusion criteria were: peer-reviewed publication in English; primary focus on the PCL-5 psychometrics; empirical study; and study with adult samples. The search yielded 265 studies; 56 papers (amounting to 64 studies) met inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Findings generally indicated evidence for: acceptable internal consistency and test-retest reliability; construct validity; a 7-factor Hybrid Model; recommended cutoff scores between 31-33; and ability to index sensitivity to clinical change. To further advance knowledge and applications of the PCL-5, we need more research on abbreviated versions of the PCL-5, bifactor modeling as applied to the PCL-5, as well as on PCL-5 item difficulty estimates, discrimination parameters, and clinical change score estimates.

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 · 10.1037/cps0000111

Cites

102 of 102 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

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Armour C, Tsai J, Durham TA, Charak R, Biehn TL, Elhai JD, & Pietrzak RH (2015). Dimensional structure of DSM-5 posttraumatic stress symptoms: Support for a hybrid Anhedonia and Externalizing behaviors model. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 61, 106– 113. 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2014.10.012 25479765 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Cohen RJ, Swerdlik ME, & Phillips SM (1996). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (3rd ed.). Mayfield Publishing Co.
  3. Cronbach LJ (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297– 334.
  4. Engellant KA, Holland DD, & Piper RT (2016). Assessing convergent and discriminant validity of the motivation construct for the technology integration education (TIE) model. Journal of Higher Education Theory & Practice, 16(1).
  5. Kass RE, & Raftery AE (1995). Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(430), 773– 795.
  6. Kline RB (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. (3rd ed.). New York, NY.: The Guilford Press.
  7. Liu P, Wang L, Cao C, Wang R, Zhang J, Zhang B, Wu Q, Zhang H, Zhao Z, Fan G, & Elhai JD (2014). The underlying dimensions of DSM-5 posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in an epidemiological sample of Chinese earthquake survivours. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 28, 345– 351. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2014.03.008 24792723 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Nunnally JC, & Bernstein IH (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  9. Rust J, & Golombok S (2014). Modern psychometrics: The science of psychological assessment. (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Forkus, S. R., Raudales, A. M., Rafiuddin, H. S., Weiss, N. H., Messman, B. A., & Contractor, A. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Rhode Island (US)
  • University of North Texas (US)
ORCID
Venue
Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2023-03
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
110-121
ISSN
  • 0969-5893 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2850
DOI
10.1037/cps0000111
PMC
PMC10292741
OpenAlex
W4295006320
Cited by
262
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 82 · 2025: 104 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 4
FWCI
41.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Science and Practice (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (K23DA039327; P20GM125507, F31DA051167)
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
PCL-5, post-traumatic stress disorder, psychometric properties, reliability statistics, construct validity, factor structure, cut-off values, sensitivity to change, self-report measures, item difficulty and discrimination

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