Cited by 8Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchSleep and related disordersPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Psychometric properties of the Mississippi Scale for Combat-Related Posttraumatic Stress Disorder based on veterans’ period of service.

Bhattarai, Jagriti “Jackie”, Oehlert, Mary E., Weber, Daniel K.·2020·Psychological Services

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

Crossref · 10.1037/ser0000285

Cites

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?

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