Cutting‐edge developments in the assessment of posttraumatic stress disorder

Abstract

The importance of assessment in the study of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has long been recognized. Although psychometrically strong PTSD measures are available, questions remain about current instrumentation. For example, there is limited information about the intensive longitudinal stability of assessment results or how stability and accuracy may vary across scales. Additionally, patient and clinician perceptions of the “worst” traumatic event frequently differ, as do estimations of PTSD symptom severity, and it is unclear if and how these differences can be aligned. In this article, we present brief examples of how each of these topics can be addressed empirically. Specifically, we discuss work on the short‐term stability of the Primary Care PTSD Screen for DSM‐5 (PC‐PTSD‐5) and provide a comparison between a clinician‐administered PTSD interview (Clinician‐Administered PTSD Scale for DSM‐5 [CAPS‐5]) and two self‐report PTSD questionnaires (PTSD Checklist for DSM‐5 [PCL‐5], Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale for DSM‐5 [PDS‐5]), focusing on treatment group effects and symptom change over time. We also introduce two new measures: the Index Event Form (IEF), a new clinician‐administered interview designed to guide the identification of the worst traumatic event, and the Respondent‐Administered PTSD Scale (RAPS), a new questionnaire designed to align with the Revised CAPS‐5 (CAPS‐5‐R). We end by discussing how cutting‐edge developments in PTSD assessment can move the field forward.