Cited by 122Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesSleep and related disorders

Low specificity of symptoms on the post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom scale: A comparison of individuals with PTSD, individuals with other anxiety disorders and individuals without psychopathology

Engelhard, Iris M., Arntz, Arnoud, Van den Hout, Marcel A.·2007·British Journal of Clinical Psychology

Abstract

Objectives Screening for post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) takes place in clinical and research settings where diagnostic interviews are not feasible, and typically relies on self‐report instruments like the PTSD symptom scale (PSS). Concerns have been raised about the specificity of PTSD symptoms assessed by questionnaires. This study examined whether the PSS distinguishes between patients with PTSD and those with other anxiety disorders or healthy controls. Design A between‐participants design was employed. Methods The participants were 65 individuals with PTSD, 40 individuals with other anxiety disorders and 40 healthy controls. They completed the PSS with respect to a range of stressful life‐events. Results Using this instrument, 86% of individuals with PTSD and 5% of healthy controls endorsed sufficient symptoms to meet the PTSD diagnosis. This was also the case for 43% of individuals with other anxiety disorders, and self‐reported symptoms related to traumatic events and aversive events that are generally not considered traumatic. Conclusions The findings suggest that many people screened positive for PTSD may actually be suffering from another anxiety disorder.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1348/014466507x206883

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Engelhard, I. M., Arntz, A., & Van den Hout, M. A.
Affiliations
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Engelhard, Iris M.
Venue
British Journal of Clinical Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-11
Volume
46
Issue
4
Pages
449-456
ISSN
  • 0144-6657 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8260
OpenAlex
W2064623422
Cited by
122
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
FWCI
9.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • British Journal of Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion)
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
post-traumatic stress disorder, symptom specificity, anxiety disorders, screening, self-report questionnaire, diagnostic validity, traumatic events, life events, false positives
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Diagnosis, Differential, Female, Humans, Male, Netherlands, Personality Inventory, Psychometrics, Sensitivity and Specificity, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Case-Control Studies

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