A comparison of the CAPS-5 and PCL-5 to assess PTSD in military and veteran treatment-seeking samples
Abstract: Background: This study was an examination of the puzzling finding that people assessed for symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) consistently score higher on the self-report PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) than the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5). Both scales purportedly assess PTSD severity with the same number of items, scaling, and scoring range, but differences in scores between measures make outcomes difficult to decipher. Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine several possible psychometric reasons for the discrepancy in scores between interview and self-report. Method: Data were combined from four clinical trials to examine the baseline and posttreatment assessments of treatment-seeking active duty military personnel and veterans. Results: As in previous studies, total scores were higher on the PCL-5 compared to the CAPS-5 at baseline and posttreatment. At baseline, PCL-5 scores were higher on all 20 items, with small to large differences in effect size. At posttreatment, only three items were not significantly different. Distributions of item responses and wording of scale anchors and items were examined as possible explanations of the difference between measures. Participants were more likely to use the full range of responses on the PCL-5 compared to interviewers. Conclusions: Suggestions for improving the congruence between these two scales are discussed. Administration of interviews by trained assessors can be resource intensive, so it is important that those assessing PTSD severity are afforded confidence in the equivalence of their assessment of PTSD regardless of the assessment method used.
Abstract: Introduction: Persistent inequities exist in obstetric and neonatal outcomes in military families despite universal health care coverage. Though the exact underlying cause has not been identified, social determinants of health may uniquely impact military families. The purpose of this study was to qualitatively investigate the potential impact of social determinants of health and the lived experiences of military individuals seeking maternity care in the Military Health System. Materials and methods: This was an Institutional Review Board-approved protocol. Nine providers conducted 31 semi-structured interviews with individuals who delivered within the last 5 years in the direct or purchased care market. Participants were recruited through social media blasts and clinic flyers with both maximum variation and homogenous sampling to ensure participation of diverse individuals. Data were coded and themes were identified using inductive qualitative research methods. Results: Three main themes were identified: Requirements of Military Life (with subthemes of pregnancy notification and privacy during care, role of pregnancy instructions and policies, and role of command support), Sociocultural Aspects of the Military Experience (with subthemes of pregnancy as a burden on colleagues and a career detractor, postpartum adjustment, balancing personal and professional requirements, pregnancy timing and parenting challenges, and importance of friendship and camaraderie in pregnancy), and Navigating the Healthcare Experience (including subthemes of transfer between military and civilian care and TRICARE challenges, perception of military care as inferior to civilian, and remote duty stations and international care). Conclusions: The unique stressors of military life act synergistically with the existing health care challenges, presenting opportunities for improvements in care. Such opportunities may include increased consistency of policies across services and commands. Increased access to group prenatal care and support groups, and increased assistance with navigating the health care system to improve care transitions were frequently requested changes by participants.