Longitudinal associations between interpersonal relationship functioning and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in recently traumatized individuals: differential findings by assessment method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of interpersonal relationship functioning in trauma recovery is well-established. However, much of this research has been done with cross-sectional samples, often years after trauma exposure, using self-report methodology only, and is focused on intimate relationship adjustment. METHODS: The current study investigated the longitudinal associations between interpersonal (intimate and non-intimate) relationship functioning and clinician- and self-reported posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in 151 recently (within the past 6 months) traumatized individuals. Participants were assessed at four time points over 1 year. RESULTS: Approximately 53% of the sample was diagnosed with PTSD at initial assessment, with declining rates of diagnostic status over time to 16%. Latent difference score (LDS) modeling revealed nonlinear declines in both clinician-assessed and self-reported PTSD symptom severity, with faster declines in earlier periods. Likewise, LDS models revealed nonlinear declines in negative (conflict) aspects of interpersonal relationship functioning, but linear declines in positive (support, depth) aspects. The relationship between PTSD and relationship functioning differed for clinician- and self-reported PTSD. Bivariate LDS modeling revealed significant cross-lagged effects from relationship conflict to clinician-assessed PTSD, and significant cross-lagged effects from self-reported PTSD to relationship conflict over time. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight that the variability in prior results may be related to the method of assessing PTSD symptomatology and different relational constructs. Implications for theory and early intervention are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.009 | 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".