Assessing posttraumatic stress disorder with close others’ collateral reports: Convergence with self- and clinician reports.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although multisource assessment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is considered best practice, past studies have either compared convergence between clinician interview and self-report or self- and close other collateral report of PTSD symptoms without clinician interview. Familial and interpersonal relationships are consistently found to be associated with an individual's psychological recovery following a traumatic event. Thus, it is important to understand the extent to which close others' collateral reports converge with clinician and self-reports of PTSD. This study compared self-, collateral, and clinician reports of PTSD symptom severity. Recently trauma-exposed individuals (N = 117) were assessed using the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS; Blake et al., 1995) and completed the past-month PTSD Checklist-Specific Stressor (PCL; Weathers, Litz, Herman, Huska, & Keane, 1993). Close others (N = 117) completed the PCL for close others (PCL-CO; Monson, 2012) that assessed their perceptions of the trauma-exposed individual's PTSD symptoms. There were significant positive correlations among PCL, PCL-CO, and CAPS total and symptom cluster scores (rs = .36-.80). Correlations were significantly stronger between clinician and self-report ratings than self-report and collateral ratings. The weakest correlations were between the PCL and PCL-CO assessing hyperarousal symptoms, r = .36, p < .01, and CAPS and PCL-CO assessing intrusive symptoms, r = .37, p < .01. Self-report measures may provide reliable PTSD assessment when clinician semistructured assessment is unfeasible. Convergence between close others' collateral and clinician and collateral and self-assessment was comparatively weak. Hyperarousal and intrusive symptoms may be more difficult for collaterals to observe and report. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".