Test of a single-item posttraumatic stress disorder screener in a military primary care setting

The Primary Care PTSD Screen for DSM-5 (PC-PTSD-5): Development and Evaluation Within a Veteran Primary Care Sample

“…10 Using a score of three as the screening threshold, 9 the PC-PTSD demonstrates better operating characteristics than other screening measures, including the Single-Item PTSD Screen (SIPS), the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), and the Startle, Physiological arousal, Anxiety, Numbness (SPAN) questionnaire. 2,[11][12][13] Further, Freedy and his colleagues found that the PC-PTSD performed similarly to the PTSD Checklist -Civilian version (PCL-C) 2 , a wellestablished longer measure of PTSD that assesses the full range of symptoms. 14,15 Because the PC-PTSD has demonstrated excellent diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility with various groups of primary care patients, 2,9,16,17 it is mandated for use in VA and DoD settings.…”

Gender differences in depression and PTSD symptoms following combat exposure

“…[19] Similar findings have been reported in other studies. [20,21] For our primary model testing analyses, we summed all four items to create a continuous measure.…”

Validation of the Primary Care Posttraumatic Stress Disorder screening questionnaire (PC-PTSD) in civilian substance use disorder patients

“…The list consists of four yes/no questions representing the PTSD symptom clusters reexperiencing, avoidance/numbing, and increased arousal. The PC-PTSD was originally developed in a Veteran Affairs (VA) primary care setting (Prins et al, 2004) and has been widely used in the U.S. army (e.g., Chan, Cheadle, Reiber, Unutzer, & Chaney, 2009;Gore, Engel, Freed, Liu, & Armstrong, 2008;Hoge, Auchterlonie, & Milliken, 2006;Milliken, Auchterlonie, & Hoge, 2007;Seal et al, 2008). To date, its diagnostic qualities have exclusively been studied within VA settings, showing high sensitivity and specificity values for cutoff scores 2 (sensitivity N.84; specificity N.70) and 3 (sensitivity N.75; specificity N.86) in this population (Bliese et al, 2008;Prins et al, 2004).…”