Cited by 54Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

New findings questioning the construct validity of complex posttraumatic stress disorder (cPTSD): let’s take a closer look

Open access
Ford, Julian D.·2020·European Journal of Psychotraumatology

Abstract

This commentary provides a broader context for interpreting evidence from Latent Class and Latent Profile analyses on complex posttraumatic stress disorder (CPTSD) that was provided in a recent contribution to the European Journal of Psychotraumatology. These data analytic strategies are not alone sufficient to test the construct validity of CPTSD. They base their conclusion on the empirical finding of substantial variation in latent models obtained with different analytic procedures and interpretations of the fit of different latent models, as well as interesting additional evidence of dispersion when individual patients’ symptom counts and symptom severity scores on PTSD and CPTSD are examined. However, the results of their analyses actually do provide support for one feature of construct validity, demonstrating discriminant validity by showing a consistent differentiation between PTSD and CPTSD (with expectable variation in both PTSD and CPTSD severity level by persons). Even in a sample of patients diagnosed with PTSD, there may be a Disorders of Self Organization (DSO) sub-group with low PTSD symptom severity. More detailed examination of which DSO symptoms and sub-domains characterize the DSO sub-group and the CPTSD sub-group is needed in order to clarify the nature of the DSO/CPTSD construct. Other analyses needed to fully test construct validity also are described.

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 · 10.1080/20008198.2019.1708145

Cites

41 of 41 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

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ford, J. D.
Affiliations
Department of Psychiatry, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT, USA
Venue
European Journal of Psychotraumatology
Published
2020-01-21
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
1708145-1708145
ISSN
2000-8066 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3001873679
Cited by
54
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Psychotraumatology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (5U79SM080013)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Keywords
complex PTSD, construct validity, discriminant validity, latent class analysis, latent profile analysis, PTSD symptom severity

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