The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM–5 (CAPS-5): Development and initial psychometric evaluation in military veterans.
Open accessAbstract
The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) is an extensively validated and widely used structured diagnostic interview for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The CAPS was recently revised to correspond with PTSD criteria in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). This article describes the development of the CAPS for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) and presents the results of an initial psychometric evaluation of CAPS-5 scores in 2 samples of military veterans (Ns = 165 and 207). CAPS-5 diagnosis demonstrated strong interrater reliability (к = .78 to 1.00, depending on the scoring rule) and test-retest reliability (к = .83), as well as strong correspondence with a diagnosis based on the CAPS for DSM-IV (CAPS-IV; к = .84 when optimally calibrated). CAPS-5 total severity score demonstrated high internal consistency (α = .88) and interrater reliability (ICC = .91) and good test-retest reliability (ICC = .78). It also demonstrated good convergent validity with total severity score on the CAPS-IV (r = .83) and PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (r = .66) and good discriminant validity with measures of anxiety, depression, somatization, functional impairment, psychopathy, and alcohol abuse (rs = .02 to .54). Overall, these results indicate that the CAPS-5 is a psychometrically sound measure of DSM-5 PTSD diagnosis and symptom severity. Importantly, the CAPS-5 strongly corresponds with the CAPS-IV, which suggests that backward compatibility with the CAPS-IV was maintained and that the CAPS-5 provides continuity in evidence-based assessment of PTSD in the transition from DSM-IV to DSM-5 criteria. (PsycINFO Database Record
Overview
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
Verification
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The most widely used symptom severity measure is the CAPS-5 60 , which comprises 30 items assessing symptom severity over the previous week.”
From The clinical characterization of the adult patient with an anxiety or related disorder aimed at personalization of management (2021) · cites this paper as [60]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Interrater reliability K=0.78-1.0 (high) discriminant validity: rs=0.02−0.54 (moderate) [100]”
From Frontal Pole Neuromodulation for Impulsivity and Suicidality in Veterans With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury and Common Co-Occurring Mental Health Conditions: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial (2024) · cites this paper as [100]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“the PtsD checklist for DsM-5 (Pcl-5) was used to quantify overall posttraumatic symptom burden and symptom-cluster scores for cluster B (intrusion), cluster c (avoidance), cluster D (negative alterations in cognition and mood), and cluster e (hyperarousal/reactivity); the Pcl-5 has demonstrated strong psychometric performance in civilian and veteran samples (Blevins et al. 2015;Bovin et al. 2016;W”
From Feasibility, tolerability, and preliminary effectiveness of an accelerated bilateral intermittent theta-burst stimulation protocol in adults with posttraumatic stress disorder and comorbid depressive disorder following mild traumatic brain injury (2026) · cites this paper as Weathers et al. 2018
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The PCL-5 [54] is a 20-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the presence and severity of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) symptoms.”
From Feasibility, acceptability, and initial outcomes of a psychological adjustment and reintegration program for transitioned military veterans (2024) · cites this paper as [54]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788
Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005 · Cited by 27,200
Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Bentler, P. M. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 · Cited by 25,266
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research
Brown, T. A. (2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-2769 · Cited by 15,621
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed.
Carter, M. J. (2014) · Therapeutic Recreation Journal · Cited by 15,154
QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies
Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W. S., Westwood, M. E., Mallett, S., Deeks, J. J., Reitsma, J. B., Leeflang, M. M. G., Sterne, J. A. C., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & the QUADAS-2 Group* (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 · Cited by 14,199
Spitzer, R. L. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.18.1737 · Cited by 9,802
Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309 · Cited by 6,567
Blevins, C. A., Weathers, F. W., Davis, M. T., Witte, T. K., & Domino, J. L. (2015) · Journal of Traumatic Stress · doi:10.1002/jts.22059 · Cited by 5,233
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Kline RB 2011 Principles and practice of structural equation modeling 3 New York, NY Guilford Press
- Weathers FW Blake DD Schnurr PP Kaloupek DG Marx BP Keane TM 2013 The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM–5 (CAPS-5) Retrieved from www.ptsd.va.gov PMC5805662 28493729
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,008 of 1,008
D’Souza, A. W., Yoo, J., Bhai, S. F., Sarma, S., Anderson, E. H., Levine, B. D., & Fu, Q. (2023) · Journal of Applied Physiology · doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00161.2023 · Cited by 4
Moskal, D., Bennett, M. E., Marks, R. M., & Roche, D. J. O. (2023) · Journal of Dual Diagnosis · doi:10.1080/15504263.2023.2286025 · Cited by 4
Sippel, L. M., Wachsman, T. R., Kelley, M. E., Knopp, K. C., Khalifian, C. E., Maglione, J. E., Glynn, S. M., Macdonald, A., Monson, C. M., Flanagan, J. C., et al. (2024) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2024.107534 · Cited by 4
Смашна, О. Є. (2021) · Здобутки клінічної і експериментальної медицини · doi:10.11603/1811-2471.2021.v.i2.12219 · Cited by 2
Bernanke, A., Hasley, R., Sabetfakhri, N., de Wit, H., Smith, B. M., Wang, L., Brenner, L. A., Hanlon, C., Philip, N. S., Ajilore, O., et al. (2024) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/58206 · Cited by 2
Smashna, O. Y. (2024) · Psychiatry, Neurology and Medical Psychology · doi:10.26565/2312-5675-2024-25-02
Brown, L. A., Kautz, M., Muzzy, W., Hart, S., Vaughn, J., Murphy, S., Foa, E., Miller, I., Kahn, A., & Acierno, R. (2026) · Cognitive and Behavioral Practice · doi:10.1016/j.cbpra.2025.06.002
Rubaye, S., Shah, A., Aldulaimy, W., Hernandez, A., Park, H., Sorial, V., Prasad, P., & Iyengar, S. (2026) · International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1080/13651501.2026.2733584
Metadata
- Authors
- Weathers, F. W., Bovin, M. J., Lee, D. J., Sloan, D. M., Schnurr, P. P., Kaloupek, D. G., Keane, T. M., & Marx, B. P.
- Affiliations
- Auburn University (US)
- VA Boston Healthcare System (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Psychological Assessment
- Published
- 2018-03
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 383-395
- ISSN
- 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-134X
- PMC
- PMC5805662
- OpenAlex
- W2612417324
- Cited by
- 1,799
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 228 · 2025: 275 · 2024: 236 · 2023: 235 · 2022: 232 · 2021: 229 · 2020: 191 · 2019: 102 · 2018: 46
- FWCI
- 119.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (I01CX000467)
- 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
- CAPS-5, post-traumatic stress disorder, DSM-5 PTSD criteria, military veterans, diagnostic interview, inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, discriminant validity, PTSD symptom severity
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Veterans, Reproducibility of Results, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Veterans Health
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
