A comparison of the CAPS-5 and PCL-5 to assess PTSD in military and veteran treatment-seeking samples
Abstract: Background: This study was an examination of the puzzling finding that people assessed for symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) consistently score higher on the self-report PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) than the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5). Both scales purportedly assess PTSD severity with the same number of items, scaling, and scoring range, but differences in scores between measures make outcomes difficult to decipher. Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine several possible psychometric reasons for the discrepancy in scores between interview and self-report. Method: Data were combined from four clinical trials to examine the baseline and posttreatment assessments of treatment-seeking active duty military personnel and veterans. Results: As in previous studies, total scores were higher on the PCL-5 compared to the CAPS-5 at baseline and posttreatment. At baseline, PCL-5 scores were higher on all 20 items, with small to large differences in effect size. At posttreatment, only three items were not significantly different. Distributions of item responses and wording of scale anchors and items were examined as possible explanations of the difference between measures. Participants were more likely to use the full range of responses on the PCL-5 compared to interviewers. Conclusions: Suggestions for improving the congruence between these two scales are discussed. Administration of interviews by trained assessors can be resource intensive, so it is important that those assessing PTSD severity are afforded confidence in the equivalence of their assessment of PTSD regardless of the assessment method used.
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.