Meta-analyses were conducted on 14 separate risk factors for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and the moderating effects of various sample and study characteristics, including civilian/military status, were examined. Three categories of risk factor emerged: Factors such as gender, age at trauma, and race that predicted PTSD in some populations but not in others; factors such as education, previous trauma, and general childhood adversity that predicted PTSD more consistently but to a varying extent according to the populations studied and the methods used; and factors such as psychiatric history, reported childhood abuse, and family psychiatric history that had more uniform predictive effects. Individually, the effect size of all the risk factors was modest, but factors operating during or after the trauma, such as trauma severity, lack of social support, and additional life stress, had somewhat stronger effects than pretrauma factors.

It was concluded that the reason for the differential performance of the two scales was that the ESS, like the shame interview, assesses specific areas of shame related to self and performance, whereas the TOSCA assesses general shame and may therefore be more prone to mood-state effects.

Background: The results of using status measures to identify any changes in treatment satisfaction strongly suggest a need for specific change instruments designed to overcome the ceiling effects frequently observed at baseline. Status measures may leave little room to show improvement in situations where baseline ceiling effects are observed. A change version of the DTSQ (DTSQc) is compared here with the original status (now called DTSQs) version to test the instruments' comparative ability to demonstrate change.

No abstract

No abstract