The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM—5 (CAPS-5) : Development and Initial Psychometric Evaluation in Military Veterans
Abstract: 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 (κ = .78 to 1.00, depending on the scoring rule) and test–retest reliability (κ = .83), as well as strong correspondence with a diagnosis based on the CAPS for DSM–IV (CAPS-IV; κ = .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.
Abstract: U.S. Air Force remotely piloted aircraft (USAF RPA) personnel face diverse stressors negatively affecting psychological health and military readiness. Prior research in diverse populations supports predictable impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on occupational stressors, burnout, and more distal outcomes. Extending earlier studies linking broad variables (e.g., COVID-19 threat → work stress → burnout), the current study tests and refines an expanded mediation model based on multiple distinct pandemic concerns, occupational stressors, and burnout facets as antecedents of psychological distress mid-pandemic in RPA personnel (N = 496). Differential representation of demands, resources, and rewards evident across distinct occupational stressors in light of job demands/resources theory guided specification of mediated pathways. SEM analysis yielded moderate fit. Following removal of non-significant paths and addition of two interpretable direct paths, fit was improved, yielding seven dominant pandemic concern → occupational stressor → burnout → psychological distress pathways. In support of domain specification, five 'hub' variables (pandemic-driven change, personal stressors, workload, leader communication, and exhaustion) emerged as key intervention targets in mitigating distress in the USAF RPA community and similar populations during future pandemic-related crises.