Psychometric properties of the Mississippi Scale for Combat-Related Posttraumatic Stress Disorder based on veterans’ period of service.
Abstract
The Mississippi Scale for Combat-Related Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (M-PTSD) is a 35-item screening instrument for combat-related PTSD (Keane, Caddell, & Taylor, 1988) that has been normed largely on veterans from the Vietnam era. Research on its psychometric properties with veterans across different periods of service (POS) remains limited; however, this is an important research endeavor because of the uniqueness in experiences across eras which may influence PTSD rates, symptom expression/complaints, and treatment completion/outcomes. In this study, our objective was to examine the instrument's properties, replicating Keane et al.'s (1988) methodologies, with veterans from World War II, Korean, Vietnam, post-Vietnam, and Persian Gulf (pre- and post-9/11) eras. This retrospective cohort study involved the examination of medical records of 29,280 veterans receiving care across Veterans Affairs medical outpatient centers nationwide. The data revealed significant differences across POS in terms of M-PTSD total scores, F (4, 29,275) = 55.01, p = .000; therefore, analyses were conducted with the entire sample and with each POS. The instrument demonstrated high internal consistency with our sample (α = .92) and across POS (.91 to .92). Receiver operating characteristic curves identified cut-scores ranging from 86 to 112 across the POS with acceptable-to-good sensitivity (68% to 81%) and fair-to-acceptable specificity (61% to 70%), with lower scores among World War II and Korean…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 validated Persian-translated version of the Mississippi Scale for Combat-Related Posttraumatic Stress Disorder was used to assess PTSD.
“A validated Persian-translated version of the Mississippi Scale for Combat-Related Posttraumatic Stress Disorder was used for assessing PTSD.”
From A randomized controlled trial of cognitive analytic versus compassion-focused therapy for PTSD in Iran-Iraq War Veterans. (2024) · cites this paper as [25]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 8
- Authors
- Bhattarai, J. “., Oehlert, M. E., & Weber, D. K.
- Affiliations
- Veterans Health Administration (US)
- Venue
- Psychological Services
- Published
- 2020-02
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 75-83
- ISSN
- 1541-1559 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-148X
- OpenAlex
- W2893855244
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 1.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Services (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Veterans Affairs Eastern Kansas Healthcare System
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Keywords
- combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder, veterans, length of service, screening tool, psychometric properties, internal consistency, sensitivity and specificity, World War II veterans, Korean War veterans
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Combat Disorders, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Retrospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, United States, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans
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