Diagnostic Accuracy and Acceptability of the Primary Care Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Screen for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) Among US Veterans | Psychiatry and Behavioral Health | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Table 1.  Diagnostic Accuracy of PC-PTSD-5 for Estimating a CAPS-5 PTSD Diagnosis for the Overall Samplea
Diagnostic Accuracy of PC-PTSD-5 for Estimating a CAPS-5 PTSD Diagnosis for the Overall Samplea
Table 2.  Diagnostic Accuracy of PC-PTSD-5 for Estimating a CAPS-5 PTSD Diagnosis for Male Veteransa
Diagnostic Accuracy of PC-PTSD-5 for Estimating a CAPS-5 PTSD Diagnosis for Male Veteransa
Table 3.  Diagnostic Accuracy of PC-PTSD-5 for Estimating a CAPS-5 PTSD Diagnosis for Female Veteransa
Diagnostic Accuracy of PC-PTSD-5 for Estimating a CAPS-5 PTSD Diagnosis for Female Veteransa
Table 4.  Frequency of Positive Results for Other Routine Mental Health Screens in VA Primary Care Among Male and Female Veterans Misclassified by the PC-PTSD-5
Frequency of Positive Results for Other Routine Mental Health Screens in VA Primary Care Among Male and Female Veterans Misclassified by the PC-PTSD-5
1.
Breslau  N.  Epidemiologic studies of trauma, posttraumatic stress disorder, and other psychiatric disorders.   Can J Psychiatry. 2002;47(10):923-929. doi:10.1177/070674370204701003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Breslau  N, Davis  GC, Schultz  LR.  Posttraumatic stress disorder and the incidence of nicotine, alcohol, and other drug disorders in persons who have experienced trauma.   Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(3):289-294. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.60.3.289PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Farley  M, Patsalides  BM.  Physical symptoms, posttraumatic stress disorder, and healthcare utilization of women with and without childhood physical and sexual abuse.   Psychol Rep. 2001;89(3):595-606. doi:10.2466/pr0.2001.89.3.595PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Simpson  TL.  Women’s treatment utilization and its relationship to childhood sexual abuse history and lifetime PTSD.   Subst Abus. 2002;23(1):17-30. doi:10.1080/08897070209511472PubMedGoogle Scholar
5.
Zayfert  C, Dums  AR, Ferguson  RJ, Hegel  MT.  Health functioning impairments associated with posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorders, and depression.   J Nerv Ment Dis. 2002;190(4):233-240. doi:10.1097/00005053-200204000-00004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Acierno  R, Lawyer  SR, Rheingold  A, Kilpatrick  DG, Resnick  HS, Saunders  BE.  Current psychopathology in previously assaulted older adults.   J Interpers Violence. 2007;22(2):250-258. doi:10.1177/0886260506295369PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Kubzansky  LD, Koenen  KC, Spiro  A  III, Vokonas  PS, Sparrow  D.  Prospective study of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and coronary heart disease in the Normative Aging Study.   Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64(1):109-116. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.64.1.109PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Kubzansky  LD, Koenen  KC.  Is posttraumatic stress disorder related to development of heart disease? an update.   Cleve Clin J Med. 2009;76(2)(suppl):S60-S65. doi:10.3949/ccjm.76.s2.12PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Koenen  KC, Stellman  SD, Sommer  JF  Jr, Stellman  JM.  Persisting posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and their relationship to functioning in Vietnam veterans: a 14-year follow-up.   J Trauma Stress. 2008;21(1):49-57. doi:10.1002/jts.20304PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
El-Gabalawy  R, Blaney  C, Tsai  J, Sumner  JA, Pietrzak  RH.  Physical health conditions associated with full and subthreshold PTSD in U.S. military veterans: results from the National Health and Resilience in Veterans Study.   J Affect Disord. 2018;227:849-853. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2017.11.058PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Kuhn  E, Blanchard  EB, Hickling  EJ.  Posttraumatic stress disorder and psychosocial functioning within two samples of MVA survivors.   Behav Res Ther. 2003;41(9):1105-1112. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(03)00071-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Sayers  SL, Farrow  VA, Ross  J, Oslin  DW.  Family problems among recently returned military veterans referred for a mental health evaluation.   J Clin Psychiatry. 2009;70(2):163-170. doi:10.4088/JCP.07m03863PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Schnurr  PP, Lunney  CA, Bovin  MJ, Marx  BP.  Posttraumatic stress disorder and quality of life: extension of findings to veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.   Clin Psychol Rev. 2009;29(8):727-735. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.08.006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Chou  SP, Goldstein  RB, Smith  SM,  et al.  The epidemiology of DSM-5 nicotine use disorder: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III.   J Clin Psychiatry. 2016;77(10):1404-1412. doi:10.4088/JCP.15m10114PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Smith  SM, Goldstein  RB, Grant  BF.  The association between post-traumatic stress disorder and lifetime DSM-5 psychiatric disorders among veterans: data from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (NESARC-III).   J Psychiatr Res. 2016;82:16-22. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2016.06.022PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Harpaz-Rotem  I, Hoff  R.  FY2019 Overview of PTSD Patient Population Data Sheet. Office of Mental Health Operations, US Dept of Veterans Affairs; 2020.
17.
US Department of Veterans Affairs. VHA handbook 1907.01: health information management and health records. Published March 19, 2015. Accessed January 6, 2021. https://www.va.gov/vhapublications/ViewPublication.asp?pub_ID=3088
18.
US Department of Veterans Affairs. VA/DOD clinical practice guideline for the management of posttraumatic stress disorder and acute stress disorder. Published June 2017. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.healthquality.va.gov/guidelines/MH/ptsd/VADoDPTSDCPGFinal012418.pdf
19.
Bohnert  KM, Sripada  RK, Mach  J, McCarthy  JF.  Same-day integrated mental health care and PTSD diagnosis and treatment among VHA primary care patients with positive PTSD screens.   Psychiatr Serv. 2016;67(1):94-100. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201500035PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Freedy  JR, Steenkamp  MM, Magruder  KM,  et al.  Post-traumatic stress disorder screening test performance in civilian primary care.   Fam Pract. 2010;27(6):615-624. doi:10.1093/fampra/cmq049PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
US Department of Veterans Affairs. Post-traumatic stress disorder: implications for primary care. Published March 2002. Accessed January 6, 2021. https://www.mirecc.va.gov/cih-visn2/Documents/Provider_Education_Handouts/PTSD_Implications_for_Primary_Care.pdf
22.
Prins  A, Ouimette  P, Kimerling  R,  et al.  The Primary Care PTSD Screen (PC-PTSD): development and operating characteristics.   Prim Care Psych. 2003;9(1):9-14. doi:10.1185/135525703125002360Google ScholarCrossref
23.
American Psychiatric Association.  Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. American Psychiatric Association; 1994.
24.
Bliese  PD, Wright  KM, Adler  AB, Cabrera  O, Castro  CA, Hoge  CW.  Validating the primary care posttraumatic stress disorder screen and the posttraumatic stress disorder checklist with soldiers returning from combat.   J Consult Clin Psychol. 2008;76(2):272-281. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.76.2.272PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Skopp  NA, Swanson  R, Luxton  DD,  et al.  An examination of the diagnostic efficiency of post-deployment mental health screens.   J Clin Psychol. 2012;68(12):1253-1265. doi:10.1002/jclp.21887PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
van Dam  D, Ehring  T, Vedel  E, Emmelkamp  PM.  Validation of the Primary Care Posttraumatic Stress Disorder screening questionnaire (PC-PTSD) in civilian substance use disorder patients.   J Subst Abuse Treat. 2010;39(2):105-113. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2010.05.005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
American Psychiatric Association.  Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
28.
Marx  BP, Prins  A, Bovin  MJ,  et al. Performance of the PCL-5 and the PC-PTSD-5 relative to the CAPS-5 in diagnosing PTSD among veterans. International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies Annual Meeting; November 2014; Miami, FL. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://istss.org/ISTSS_Main/media/Documents/2014SessionAbstracts.pdf
29.
Prins  A, Bovin  MJ, Smolenski  DJ,  et al.  The Primary Care PTSD Screen for DSM-5 (PC-PTSD-5): development and evaluation within a veteran primary care sample.   J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(10):1206-1211. doi:10.1007/s11606-016-3703-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Kraemer  HC.  Evaluating Medical Tests: Objective and Quantitative Guidelines. Sage Publications; 1992.
31.
Bossuyt  PM, Reitsma  JB, Bruns  DE,  et al.  STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies.   BMJ. 2015;351:h5527. doi:10.1136/bmj.h5527PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Kroenke  K, Spitzer  RL, Williams  JB.  The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure.   J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606-613. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Löwe  B, Spitzer  RL, Gräfe  K,  et al.  Comparative validity of three screening questionnaires for DSM-IV depressive disorders and physicians’ diagnoses.   J Affect Disord. 2004;78(2):131-140. doi:10.1016/S0165-0327(02)00237-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Bradley  KA, Bush  KR, Epler  AJ,  et al.  Two brief alcohol-screening tests From the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): validation in a female Veterans Affairs patient population.   Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(7):821-829. doi:10.1001/archinte.163.7.821PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Bradley  KA, Kivlahan  DR, Zhou  XH,  et al.  Using alcohol screening results and treatment history to assess the severity of at-risk drinking in Veterans Affairs primary care patients.   Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2004;28(3):448-455. doi:10.1097/01.ALC.0000117836.38108.38PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Hagman  BT.  Toward efficient screening for DSM-5 alcohol use disorders in college students: performance of the AUDIT-C.   Addict Disord Their Treat. 2015;14(1):1-15. doi:10.1097/ADT.0000000000000038PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Schwab  KA, Ivins  B, Cramer  G,  et al.  Screening for traumatic brain injury in troops returning from deployment in Afghanistan and Iraq: initial investigation of the usefulness of a short screening tool for traumatic brain injury.   J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2007;22(6):377-389. doi:10.1097/01.HTR.0000300233.98242.87PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
US Department of Veterans Affairs. VA directive 2010-012: Screening and evaluation of possible traumatic brain injury in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) veterans. Published March 8, 2010. Accessed January 7, 2021. https://www.va.gov/optometry/docs/vha_directive_2010-012_screening_and_evaluation_of_possible_tbi_in_oef-oif_veterans.pdf
39.
Weathers  FW, Litz  BT, Keane  TM,  et al. The PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). Published 2013. Accessed January 7, 2021. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/assessment/adult-sr/ptsd-checklist.asp
40.
Weathers  FW, Bovin  MJ, Lee  DJ,  et al.  The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5): development and initial psychometric evaluation in military veterans.   Psychol Assess. 2018;30(3):383-395. doi:10.1037/pas0000486PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Aziz  MA, Kenford  S.  Comparability of telephone and face-to-face interviews in assessing patients with posttraumatic stress disorder.   J Psychiatr Pract. 2004;10(5):307-313. doi:10.1097/00131746-200409000-00004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Magruder  KM, Frueh  BC, Knapp  RG,  et al.  Prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder in Veterans Affairs primary care clinics.   Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2005;27(3):169-179. doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2004.11.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Schnurr  PP, Spiro  A  III, Vielhauer  MJ,  et al  Trauma in the lives of older men: findings from the Normative Aging Study.   J Clin Geropsych. 2002;8(3):175-187. doi:10.1023/A:1015992110544Google ScholarCrossref
44.
Mackinnon  A.  A spreadsheet for the calculation of comprehensive statistics for the assessment of diagnostic tests and inter-rater agreement.   Comput Biol Med. 2000;30(3):127-134. doi:10.1016/S0010-4825(00)00006-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Cicchetti  DV.  Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology.   Psych Assess. 1994;6(4):284-290. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284Google ScholarCrossref
46.
Congressional Budget Office. The Veterans Health Administration’s treatment of PTSD and traumatic brain injury among recent combat veterans. Published February 2012. Accessed January 7, 2021. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-congress-2011-2012/reports/02-09-PTSD_0.pdf
47.
Tanielian  TL, Jaycox  L, eds. Invisible wounds of war: psychological and cognitive injuries, their consequences, and services to assist recovery. RAND Corporation. Published 2008. Accessed January 7, 2021. https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG720.html
48.
Chang  ET, Zulman  DM, Nelson  KM,  et al.  Use of general primary care, specialized primary care, and other Veterans Affairs services among high-risk veterans.   JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(6):e208120. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.8120PubMedGoogle Scholar
49.
Leung  LB, Rubenstein  LV, Post  EP,  et al.  Association of Veterans Affairs primary care mental health integration with care access among men and women veterans.   JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(10):e2020955. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.20955PubMedGoogle Scholar
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Original Investigation
    Psychiatry
    February 4, 2021

    Diagnostic Accuracy and Acceptability of the Primary Care Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Screen for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) Among US Veterans

    Author Affiliations
    • 1National Center for PTSD, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts
    • 2Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
    • 3National Center for PTSD, VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Palo Alto, California
    • 4Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Palo Alto, California
    • 5Department of Psychology, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama
    • 6Department of Psychology, San Jose State University, San Jose, California
    • 7Veterans Affairs Central Office, Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan
    • 8University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor
    • 9National Center for PTSD, White River Junction, Vermont
    • 10Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire
    JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(2):e2036733. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.36733
    Key Points

    Question  Is the Primary Care Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Screen, as revised for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) (PC-PTSD-5), diagnostically accurate and acceptable to Veterans Affairs primary care patients?

    Findings  In this diagnostic study of 396 primary care–seeking veterans, the 5-item PC-PTSD-5 was both diagnostically accurate and acceptable to participants. A cut point score of 4 best balanced the false negatives and false positives, although women may require a lower cut point (ie, a score of 3).

    Meaning  Like its predecessor, the PC-PTSD-5 is an effective and efficient tool for PTSD screening in Veterans Affairs primary care clinics.

    Abstract

    Importance  Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a serious mental health disorder that can be effectively treated with empirically based practices. PTSD screening is essential for identifying undetected cases and providing patients with appropriate care.

    Objective  To determine whether the Primary Care PTSD screen for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) (PC-PTSD-5) is a diagnostically accurate and acceptable measure for use in Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  This cross-sectional, diagnostic accuracy study enrolled participants from May 19, 2017, to September 26, 2018. Participants were recruited from primary care clinics across 2 VA Medical Centers. Session 1 was conducted in person, and session 2 was completed within 30 days via telephone. A consecutive sample of 1594 veterans, aged 18 years or older, who were scheduled for a primary care visit was recruited. Data analysis was performed from March 2019 to August 2020.

    Exposures  In session 1, participants completed a battery of questionnaires. In session 2, a research assistant administered the PC-PTSD-5 to participants, and then a clinician assessor blind to PC-PTSD-5 results conducted a structured diagnostic interview for PTSD.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  The range of PC-PTSD-5 cut points overall and across gender was assessed, and diagnostic performance was evaluated by calculating weighted κ values.

    Results  In total, 495 of 1594 veterans (31%) participated, and 396 completed all measures and were included in the analyses. Participants were demographically similar to the VA primary care population (mean [SD] age, 61.4 [15.5] years; age range, 21-93 years) and were predominantly male (333 participants [84.1%]) and White (296 of 394 participants [75.1%]). The PC-PTSD-5 had high levels of diagnostic accuracy for the overall sample (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.927; 95% CI, 0.896-0.959), men (AUC, 0.932; 95% CI, 0.894-0.969), and women (AUC, 0.899, 95% CI, 0.824-0.974). A cut point of 4 ideally balanced false negatives and false positives for the overall sample and for men. However, for women, this cut point resulted in high numbers of false negatives (6 veterans [33.3%]). A cut point of 3 fit better for women, despite increasing the number of false positives. Participants rated the PC-PTSD-5 as highly acceptable.

    Conclusions and Relevance  The PC-PTSD-5 is an accurate and acceptable screening tool for use in VA primary care settings. Because performance parameters will change according to sample, clinicians should consider sample characteristics and screening purposes when selecting a cut point.

    Introduction

    Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a serious mental health disorder that can develop following exposure to catastrophic life events, such as combat, sexual assault, and natural disasters. PTSD is associated with mental and physical health comorbidities,1-10 impaired functioning, and reduced quality of life.11-13 The lifetime prevalence of PTSD in the US is 6.1%.14 Among veterans who receive health care from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the prevalence is 11.5% for men and 18.9% for women.15,16

    To ensure identification of and appropriate services for individuals with PTSD, many health care systems, including VA, have instituted screening programs.17,18 In the VA system, all veterans enrolled in care are screened for PTSD annually for the first 5 years after military separation and every 5 years thereafter. In the VA system and in other settings, PTSD screening is conducted in primary care clinics19,20 because individuals with mental health symptoms are more likely to initially seek medical care.21 VA uses the Primary Care PTSD Screen (PC-PTSD)22 for screening. This 4-item measure, which is based on the PTSD diagnostic criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition),23 has excellent psychometric properties.22,24-26

    In 2013, the American Psychiatric Association presented revised PTSD diagnostic criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) (DSM-5).27 The PC-PTSD was revised as the PC-PTSD-5 to reflect DSM-5 criteria. Furthermore, language to assess traumatic exposure was clarified to ensure that respondents understood that symptom questions referred to traumatic events and not to other stressors. Pilot testing suggested that the PC-PTSD-5 had sound diagnostic accuracy.28,29

    The current study evaluates the PC-PTSD-5 using a reference-standard clinician-administered PTSD interview to establish the diagnostic accuracy and determine the appropriate cut point for use in a VA primary care setting. Because of gender differences in PTSD prevalence,30 we explore whether diagnostic accuracy and optimal PC-PTSD-5 cut point differed for men and women. Finally, we aim to confirm the high levels of patient-rated PC-PTSD-5 acceptability by replicating pilot findings.

    Methods

    Local institutional review boards approved all study procedures. All participants provided written informed consent. This study follows the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) reporting guideline31 (eAppendix 1 and eFigure in the Supplement).

    Participants

    We approached a consecutive sample of primary care–seeking veterans across 2 VA Medical Centers. Veterans with complete data constituted our sample. Participants completed a number of measures, including a questionnaire that gathered information on demographic and military service characteristics.

    PC-PTSD-5 Screen

    The PC-PTSD-529 is a questionnaire designed to screen for PTSD in a primary care setting. Participants first complete a single question to determine lifetime trauma exposure. Those who deny exposure receive a score of 0. Participants who report exposure respond to 5 dichotomously scored (0 = no; 1 = yes) questions about PTSD symptoms experienced within the past month. Total scores range from 0 to 5.

    PC-PTSD-5 Acceptability Questionnaire

    We modified a 7-item questionnaire to assess PC-PTSD-5 acceptability and participants’ preferred mode of administration (eAppendix 2 in the Supplement).29 All items were scored from 1 (very easy or very comfortable) to 5 (very difficult or very uncomfortable).

    Patient Health Questionnaire–9

    The Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9)32 is a well-validated measure of DSM-5 major depressive disorder.33 Respondents are asked to indicate how often they have been bothered by each symptom over the last 2 weeks on 9 items scored from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day). Consistent with VA practice, participants who screened positive on both the PHQ-2 (first 2 items; score ≥3) and the PHQ-9 (all 9 items; score ≥15) were considered positive for depression; participants with a score greater than or equal to 1 on the ninth item were considered to have screened positive for potential suicidality.

    Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test–Consumption

    The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test–Consumption (AUDIT-C) is a 3-item measure34,35 that detects DSM-5 alcohol misuse disorders.36 Items are scored from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating more use. Unlike the VA version of the measure, which asks about use in the past year, we used the validated version that does not specify the time frame of use. Consistent with VA practice, a score of 4 or higher for men and 3 or higher for women was considered a positive screen.

    Traumatic Brain Injury Screen

    VA uses the 4-item Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Screen, which is based on the Brief Traumatic Brain Injury Screen,37 to identify veterans who were both exposed to events associated with TBI risk and who display symptoms potentially related to these exposures.38 Veterans who endorsed experiencing a TBI that resulted in symptoms both immediately after the event and within the past week were considered positive for TBI.

    Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5

    The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5)39 is the reference standard, clinician-rated diagnostic interview for the assessment of DSM-5 PTSD. Each symptom is rated on a 5-point severity scale, ranging from 0 (absent) to 4 (extreme or incapacitating). Several scoring rules exist, ranging from broad to more stringent approaches to diagnosis.40 We used a moderately stringent approach, requiring symptoms to meet diagnostic criteria and a severity score of 22 or higher. This approach puts the diagnosis on the cusp of the mild-to-moderate range of PTSD40 and demonstrated the best fit to the data. (We calculated diagnostic accuracy statistics for additional scoring rules with nearly identical results; data not shown.) The CAPS-5 was administered by doctoral-level clinicians who participated in regular reliability meetings. Interrater reliability, which was calculated for 12.5% of the sample (51 participants), was excellent (κ = 0.88; intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.997).

    Procedure

    From May 19, 2017, to September 26, 2018, veterans scheduled for a VA primary care visit who expressed interest in participation were scheduled for an in-person appointment on or within 7 days of their primary care visit. At this appointment (session 1), interested participants provided written consent and completed questionnaires. Participants were compensated $15 and were scheduled for a telephone appointment within 30 days of session 1 (session 2). The time between sessions ranged from 1 to 30 days (mean [SD], 11.9 [7.4] days). At session 2, participants first spoke to a research assistant who administered the PC-PTSD-5 and the PC-PTSD-5 Acceptability Questionnaire. The participant was then transferred to an assessor, blind to their PC-PTSD-5 results, who administered the CAPS-5. The quality and acceptability to research participants of psychiatric telephone interviews are now well-established.41-43 Veterans who participated in session 2 received an additional $30 compensation.

    Statistical Analysis

    We conducted analyses to evaluate diagnostic accuracy and identify the optimal cut point for the overall sample and across gender. We examined diagnostic accuracy for each of the 5 possible cut points on the PC-PTSD-5 (1-5) against a CAPS-5 PTSD diagnosis (present/ vs absent) with weighted κ coefficients as measures of test quality, including quality of sensitivity (κ[1]), specificity (κ[0]), and efficiency (κ[0.5]). Quality metrics are measures of test performance (ie, sensitivity, specificity, and efficiency), that were calibrated for chance agreement between the test and diagnosis.30 We used a DAG_STAT spreadsheet44 to calculate measures of both test performance (for descriptive purposes) and test quality. Although optimally sensitive cut points are generally recommended for screening measures because they reduce false negatives, they also increase false positives.30 In contrast, optimally efficient cut points minimize diagnostic errors by decreasing false positives but increasing false negatives.30 Therefore, our objective was to compare the cut point with the highest quality of sensitivity that still maintained a minimal specificity (approximately 0.80; used to account for the cost of false positives) to the cut point with the highest quality of efficiency. The κ values were evaluated using the following guidelines: a value less than or equal to 0.40 is poor, a value greater than or equal to 0.41 and less than 0.60 is fair, a value greater than or equal to 0.60 and less than 0.75 is good, and a value greater than or equal to 0.75 is excellent.45

    We also explored the potential impact of misclassified screens by examining the proportion of false negatives and false positives for each cut point that would receive a positive screen on other routine VA mental health screening instruments (AUDIT-C, PHQ-9, and TBI screen). If false-negative PTSD cases would come to clinical attention as a result of positive scores on other screens, concerns about underdetection of PTSD might be mitigated. If false-positive PTSD cases demonstrate clinically significant symptoms on other screens, concerns about excess diagnostic burden might be reduced, because these individuals would benefit from further evaluation.

    We calculated descriptive statistics for the PC-PTSD-5 Acceptability Questionnaire and conducted paired t tests to determine the preferred mode of administration using SPSS statistical software version 26 (IBM). Significance was set at 2-sided P < .05. Data analysis was performed from March 2019 to August 2020.

    Results

    We recruited 1594 primary care–seeking veterans across 2 VA Medical Centers and 495 (31%) participated. Complete data were available for 396 veterans, and they constituted our sample for analysis. Participants with and without complete data were demographically similar, with 3 exceptions: participants with complete data were more likely to be married (43.0% vs 16.7%; χ2 = 8.006; P = .005), less likely to be separated (2.0% vs 10.0%; χ2 = 7.033; P = .008), and less likely to be Latinx (ie, Latino or Latina; 7.8% vs 25.9%; χ2 = 10.898; P = .001) than those without complete data.

    Participants ranged in age from 21 to 93 years (mean [SD], 61.4 [15.5] years) and were predominantly male (333 men [84.1%]), non-Latinx (320 of 347 participants [92.2%]), and White (296 of 394 participants [75.1%]). Eighty-eight participants (22.8%) served during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (ie, October 7, 2001, to present), and 298 participants (77.2%) served in an earlier era. Data were missing for 10 participants. See the eTable in the Supplement for participant characteristics by site.

    According to the CAPS-5, 68 participants (17.2% of all participants, accounting for 50 men [15%] and 18 women [29%]) met the criteria for PTSD. Nearly all participants (374 participants [94.4%]) had experienced a traumatic event. The PC-PTSD-5 trauma item was generally concordant with the diagnostic interview, with 76.5% agreement (303 participants) on trauma exposure. Of the participants discordant for trauma exposure, only 1 (1.2%) met CAPS-5 PTSD criteria. Most discordant cases (86 of 93 participants [92.5%]) did not report exposure on the PC-PTSD-5 but trauma exposure was rated present upon clinical interview. These participants were significantly more likely to have experienced indirect exposure (learning about a traumatic event, rather than experiencing it directly) than participants who were concordant for exposure (χ2 = 8.28; P = .004).

    Diagnostic Accuracy

    For the overall sample, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the PC-PTSD-5 was 0.927 (95% CI, 0.896-0.959). The cut point with the highest κ(1) value (0.85; excellent range) that still exceeded the a priori minimum specificity (≥0.80) on the PC-PTSD-5 was 3. With this cut point, 7 veterans (10.3%) with PTSD screened negative (false negatives), and 66 veterans (20.1%) without PTSD screened positive (false positives). The cut point with the highest κ(0.5) score (0.65; good range) was 4. With this cut point, the percentage of false negatives increased to 22.1% (15 false negatives), and the percentage of false positives decreased to 8.5% (28 false positives) (Table 1).

    For men, the AUC was 0.932 (95% CI, 0.894-0.969). The cut point with the highest κ(1) value (0.86; excellent range) that still demonstrated acceptable specificity (≥0.80) was 3. With this cut point, 5 male veterans (10.0%) were classified as false negatives, and 52 (18.4%) were classified as false positives. The cut point with the highest κ(0.5) value (0.67; good range) was 4. With this cut point, the percentage of false negatives increased to 18.0% (9 false negatives), whereas the percentage of false positives decreased to 7.8% (22 false positives) (Table 2).

    For women, the AUC was 0.899 (95% CI, 0.824-0.974). The AUC for men and women was not significantly different (χ2 = 0.57; P = .45), indicating that the PC-PTSD-5 performed consistently across gender. The cut point with the highest κ(1) value (0.79; excellent range) that still demonstrated acceptable specificity (≥0.80) was 3. With this cut point, 2 women (11.1%) were classified as false negatives, whereas 13 (30.0%) were classified as false positives. Unlike the overall sample and the male veterans, the cut point with the highest κ(0.5) value (0.60; good range) was 5. With this cut point, nearly half of female veterans (8 veterans [44.4%]) were classified as false negatives, whereas the percentage of false positives decreased to 2.3% (1 female veteran). Because a cut point of 5 would produce unacceptably high percentages of false negatives for both men and women, we also considered a cut point of 4. This cut point, which produced the second highest κ(0.5) value among women (0.56; fair range), tripled the number of false negatives associated with a cut point of 3 (6 women [33.3%]), but reduced the number of false positives by more than half (5 women [11.4%]) (Table 3).

    We conducted exploratory analyses to estimate the consequences of misclassification of PTSD status by the PC-PTSD-5. For PC-PTSD-5 cut points of 3 and 4, we examined the hypothetical likelihood that false-negative cases would come to clinical attention because of other mental health screens routinely administered in VA primary care. We also examined the likelihood that false-positive cases on the PC-PTSD-5 might benefit from diagnostic evaluation despite not meeting PTSD criteria, by determining whether other screens suggested clinically significant symptoms of other conditions. Results indicated that even with a cut point of 4, the cut point associated with the higher number of false negatives, most false negatives (7 men [77.8%]; 5 women [83.3%]) would otherwise come to clinical attention because of dispositions on 1 or more other screening instruments. Similarly, even with a cut point of 3, the cut point associated with the higher number of false positives, most false positives (44 men [84.6%]; 9 women [69.2%]) would likely benefit from additional evaluation, because they reported clinically significant symptoms of 1 or more other conditions (Table 4).

    Acceptability

    Most participants rated the PC-PTSD-5 questions as easy or very easy to understand (372 participants [93.9%]) and answer (331 participants [83.6%]) and rated the instructions as clear or very clear (384 participants [97.0%]). Participants also indicated that they would be comfortable or very comfortable answering questions during a primary care visit (332 participants [83.8%]). Veterans were more comfortable answering the questions when asked by their own physician than either on their own (t = 2.76; P = .006) or by a nurse or other practitioner (t = −9.05; P < .001). Furthermore, veterans reported they would be more comfortable completing the PC-PTSD-5 on their own than with a nurse or other practitioner (t = −4.63; P < .001). There were no differences in administration preference across gender (all t < 1.39; all P > .15).

    Discussion

    To our knowledge, this study is the first to examine the accuracy of the PC-PTSD-5 against a well-validated, clinician-administered structured interview. The PC-PTSD-5 had high levels of diagnostic accuracy. Weighted κ values indicated that the PC-PTSD-5 generally has good-to-excellent agreement with clinician-rated diagnosis. Furthermore, the inclusion of a trauma prompt added clarity to the screen; nearly all individuals for whom the screen failed to detect trauma exposure did not meet criteria for PTSD. Overall, the PC-PTSD-5 was well understood, and most participants felt comfortable completing it, with a preference for administration by the veteran’s own primary care practitioner. Results indicate that the PC-PTSD-5 retains the strong psychometric properties of its predecessor, the PC-PTSD.22 These findings are consistent with preliminary work examining the validity of the instrument29 and suggest that the PC-PTSD-5 can accurately detect PTSD in VA primary care settings.

    The cut point on the PC-PTSD-5 with the highest quality of sensitivity given a minimal specificity was 3, whereas the cut point with the highest quality of efficiency was 4. Compared with a cut point of 4, a cut point of 3 was less likely to miss individuals with PTSD, but more likely to classify individuals without PTSD as having PTSD. These cut point options pose a choice between allocating resources toward detection vs the efficiency of clinical operations. Optimizing sensitivity will detect more cases of PTSD but could yield large numbers of primary care users who require further evaluation, many of whom will not receive a diagnosis of PTSD. Optimizing efficiency may mitigate the demand for diagnostic evaluation, especially among individuals without PTSD, but could fail to bring significant numbers of PTSD cases to the attention of practitioners.

    For men, we again found that the cut point with the highest quality of sensitivity given a minimal specificity was 3, whereas the cut point with the highest quality of efficiency was 4; because men made up 84.3% of the sample, this parallel is unsurprising. For women, the cut point with the highest quality of sensitivity given a minimal specificity was also 3, but the cut point with the highest quality of efficiency was 5. The differential findings across gender may be driven by differences in PTSD prevalence: PTSD was nearly twice as prevalent in women vs men. Although the AUC did not differ by gender, stratified analyses suggested that, at a cut point of 4, there is risk of a substantial proportion of undetected PTSD among women, without the similar reduction of false positives observed among men. Additional research with larger populations of women can inform judgments regarding the utility of lower cut points among women in some settings.

    False-positive screens risk excess diagnostic burden that may limit the efficiency of clinical systems, but the cost of undetected PTSD could be even more substantial in terms of the avoidable suffering, health risks, and increased health care costs associated with untreated PTSD.13,46,47 Our exploratory analyses illustrate the likely disposition of undetected cases under current VA mental health screening practice: the majority of undetected PTSD cases would likely come to clinical attention for evaluation as a result of their disposition from other routine mental health screens in primary care. To the extent that these clinical encounters lead to the detection of PTSD and/or treatment of comorbid conditions, the costs of undetected PTSD would be mitigated.

    Limitations

    Our study has several limitations. First, participants were veterans in the VA health care system, which may limit generalizability to other health care settings or populations. However, we expect that, like the PC-PTSD, the PC-PTSD-5 will retain its strong psychometric properties across nonveteran samples.20,24,26 Second, although participants were demographically representative of VA primary care users,48,49 nonresponse bias may limit generalizability to this population. Third, other subgroups beyond and within gender may benefit from further study; this is an important future direction. Fourth, our interpretation of the ratio of harms to benefits for different cut points is predicated on the assumption that VA primary care–based mental health screens are administered within similar time frames. If they are not, the proportion of undetected cases that ultimately receive clinical attention may differ from our estimates. Future research is encouraged to replicate findings in a naturalistic setting to evaluate these estimates.

    Conclusions

    Overall, the PC-PTSD-5 is a useful PTSD screen that is easily understood and completed by primary care–seeking veterans and demonstrates good diagnostic utility. However, like all screens, the PC-PTSD-5 is not a substitute for clinical judgment. Scores of 3 among individuals presenting with symptoms of PTSD may merit diagnostic evaluation despite their screen scores. Practitioners may consider a lower cut point for female veterans in some settings if evaluation resources are available or base rates of mental health conditions are high. In contrast, a higher cut point may be preferable if resources are such that false positives will substantially decrease clinician availability. Because performance parameters will change according to sample, clinicians should consider sample characteristics and screening purposes when selecting a cut point.

    Regardless of the cut point, the PC-PTSD-5 has demonstrated utility in screening for PTSD in VA primary care settings. The prevalence of PTSD among patients seeking primary care—15% of men and 29% of women in our sample—underscores the importance of screening. PTSD is a treatable condition, with numerous treatment options.18 Screening is an essential step toward getting patients the care they need.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: December 12, 2020.

    Published: February 4, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.36733

    Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 Bovin MJ et al. JAMA Network Open.

    Corresponding Author: Michelle J. Bovin, PhD, National Center for PTSD, VA Boston Healthcare System (116B-4), 150 S Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02130 (michelle.bovin@va.gov).

    Author Contributions: Drs Bovin and Schnurr had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: All authors.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Bovin, Kimerling, Weathers, Schnurr.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Bovin, Schnurr.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

    Statistical analysis: Bovin, Kimerling, Weathers.

    Obtained funding: Bovin, Schnurr.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Bovin, Kimerling, Prins, Marx, Post, Schnurr.

    Supervision: Bovin, Kimerling.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Weathers reported receiving consultant fees for providing CAPS-5 training to multiple research projects. No other disclosures were reported.

    Funding/Support: This project was supported by award I01 HX001876-01A2 from the US Veterans Administration Health Services Research & Development Service to Drs Bovin and Schnurr.

    Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    Additional Contributions: Laurel G. Brown, PhD (National Center for PTSD and VA Boston Healthcare System), Sarah E. Kleiman, PhD (Kleiman Consulting and Psychological Services, PC), and Samantha Moshier, PhD (Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Emmanuel College), conducted assessments for this study; they were not compensated for this work beyond their normal salaries.

    References
    1.
    Breslau  N.  Epidemiologic studies of trauma, posttraumatic stress disorder, and other psychiatric disorders.   Can J Psychiatry. 2002;47(10):923-929. doi:10.1177/070674370204701003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    2.
    Breslau  N, Davis  GC, Schultz  LR.  Posttraumatic stress disorder and the incidence of nicotine, alcohol, and other drug disorders in persons who have experienced trauma.   Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(3):289-294. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.60.3.289PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Farley  M, Patsalides  BM.  Physical symptoms, posttraumatic stress disorder, and healthcare utilization of women with and without childhood physical and sexual abuse.   Psychol Rep. 2001;89(3):595-606. doi:10.2466/pr0.2001.89.3.595PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    4.
    Simpson  TL.  Women’s treatment utilization and its relationship to childhood sexual abuse history and lifetime PTSD.   Subst Abus. 2002;23(1):17-30. doi:10.1080/08897070209511472PubMedGoogle Scholar
    5.
    Zayfert  C, Dums  AR, Ferguson  RJ, Hegel  MT.  Health functioning impairments associated with posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorders, and depression.   J Nerv Ment Dis. 2002;190(4):233-240. doi:10.1097/00005053-200204000-00004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    Acierno  R, Lawyer  SR, Rheingold  A, Kilpatrick  DG, Resnick  HS, Saunders  BE.  Current psychopathology in previously assaulted older adults.   J Interpers Violence. 2007;22(2):250-258. doi:10.1177/0886260506295369PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    7.
    Kubzansky  LD, Koenen  KC, Spiro  A  III, Vokonas  PS, Sparrow  D.  Prospective study of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and coronary heart disease in the Normative Aging Study.   Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64(1):109-116. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.64.1.109PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    8.
    Kubzansky  LD, Koenen  KC.  Is posttraumatic stress disorder related to development of heart disease? an update.   Cleve Clin J Med. 2009;76(2)(suppl):S60-S65. doi:10.3949/ccjm.76.s2.12PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    9.
    Koenen  KC, Stellman  SD, Sommer  JF  Jr, Stellman  JM.  Persisting posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and their relationship to functioning in Vietnam veterans: a 14-year follow-up.   J Trauma Stress. 2008;21(1):49-57. doi:10.1002/jts.20304PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    10.
    El-Gabalawy  R, Blaney  C, Tsai  J, Sumner  JA, Pietrzak  RH.  Physical health conditions associated with full and subthreshold PTSD in U.S. military veterans: results from the National Health and Resilience in Veterans Study.   J Affect Disord. 2018;227:849-853. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2017.11.058PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    11.
    Kuhn  E, Blanchard  EB, Hickling  EJ.  Posttraumatic stress disorder and psychosocial functioning within two samples of MVA survivors.   Behav Res Ther. 2003;41(9):1105-1112. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(03)00071-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    12.
    Sayers  SL, Farrow  VA, Ross  J, Oslin  DW.  Family problems among recently returned military veterans referred for a mental health evaluation.   J Clin Psychiatry. 2009;70(2):163-170. doi:10.4088/JCP.07m03863PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    13.
    Schnurr  PP, Lunney  CA, Bovin  MJ, Marx  BP.  Posttraumatic stress disorder and quality of life: extension of findings to veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.   Clin Psychol Rev. 2009;29(8):727-735. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.08.006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    14.
    Chou  SP, Goldstein  RB, Smith  SM,  et al.  The epidemiology of DSM-5 nicotine use disorder: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III.   J Clin Psychiatry. 2016;77(10):1404-1412. doi:10.4088/JCP.15m10114PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    15.
    Smith  SM, Goldstein  RB, Grant  BF.  The association between post-traumatic stress disorder and lifetime DSM-5 psychiatric disorders among veterans: data from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (NESARC-III).   J Psychiatr Res. 2016;82:16-22. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2016.06.022PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    16.
    Harpaz-Rotem  I, Hoff  R.  FY2019 Overview of PTSD Patient Population Data Sheet. Office of Mental Health Operations, US Dept of Veterans Affairs; 2020.
    17.
    US Department of Veterans Affairs. VHA handbook 1907.01: health information management and health records. Published March 19, 2015. Accessed January 6, 2021. https://www.va.gov/vhapublications/ViewPublication.asp?pub_ID=3088
    18.
    US Department of Veterans Affairs. VA/DOD clinical practice guideline for the management of posttraumatic stress disorder and acute stress disorder. Published June 2017. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.healthquality.va.gov/guidelines/MH/ptsd/VADoDPTSDCPGFinal012418.pdf
    19.
    Bohnert  KM, Sripada  RK, Mach  J, McCarthy  JF.  Same-day integrated mental health care and PTSD diagnosis and treatment among VHA primary care patients with positive PTSD screens.   Psychiatr Serv. 2016;67(1):94-100. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201500035PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    20.
    Freedy  JR, Steenkamp  MM, Magruder  KM,  et al.  Post-traumatic stress disorder screening test performance in civilian primary care.   Fam Pract. 2010;27(6):615-624. doi:10.1093/fampra/cmq049PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
    US Department of Veterans Affairs. Post-traumatic stress disorder: implications for primary care. Published March 2002. Accessed January 6, 2021. https://www.mirecc.va.gov/cih-visn2/Documents/Provider_Education_Handouts/PTSD_Implications_for_Primary_Care.pdf
    22.
    Prins  A, Ouimette  P, Kimerling  R,  et al.  The Primary Care PTSD Screen (PC-PTSD): development and operating characteristics.   Prim Care Psych. 2003;9(1):9-14. doi:10.1185/135525703125002360Google ScholarCrossref
    23.
    American Psychiatric Association.  Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. American Psychiatric Association; 1994.
    24.
    Bliese  PD, Wright  KM, Adler  AB, Cabrera  O, Castro  CA, Hoge  CW.  Validating the primary care posttraumatic stress disorder screen and the posttraumatic stress disorder checklist with soldiers returning from combat.   J Consult Clin Psychol. 2008;76(2):272-281. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.76.2.272PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    25.
    Skopp  NA, Swanson  R, Luxton  DD,  et al.  An examination of the diagnostic efficiency of post-deployment mental health screens.   J Clin Psychol. 2012;68(12):1253-1265. doi:10.1002/jclp.21887PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    26.
    van Dam  D, Ehring  T, Vedel  E, Emmelkamp  PM.  Validation of the Primary Care Posttraumatic Stress Disorder screening questionnaire (PC-PTSD) in civilian substance use disorder patients.   J Subst Abuse Treat. 2010;39(2):105-113. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2010.05.005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    27.
    American Psychiatric Association.  Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
    28.
    Marx  BP, Prins  A, Bovin  MJ,  et al. Performance of the PCL-5 and the PC-PTSD-5 relative to the CAPS-5 in diagnosing PTSD among veterans. International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies Annual Meeting; November 2014; Miami, FL. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://istss.org/ISTSS_Main/media/Documents/2014SessionAbstracts.pdf
    29.
    Prins  A, Bovin  MJ, Smolenski  DJ,  et al.  The Primary Care PTSD Screen for DSM-5 (PC-PTSD-5): development and evaluation within a veteran primary care sample.   J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(10):1206-1211. doi:10.1007/s11606-016-3703-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    30.
    Kraemer  HC.  Evaluating Medical Tests: Objective and Quantitative Guidelines. Sage Publications; 1992.
    31.
    Bossuyt  PM, Reitsma  JB, Bruns  DE,  et al.  STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies.   BMJ. 2015;351:h5527. doi:10.1136/bmj.h5527PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    32.
    Kroenke  K, Spitzer  RL, Williams  JB.  The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure.   J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606-613. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    33.
    Löwe  B, Spitzer  RL, Gräfe  K,  et al.  Comparative validity of three screening questionnaires for DSM-IV depressive disorders and physicians’ diagnoses.   J Affect Disord. 2004;78(2):131-140. doi:10.1016/S0165-0327(02)00237-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    34.
    Bradley  KA, Bush  KR, Epler  AJ,  et al.  Two brief alcohol-screening tests From the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): validation in a female Veterans Affairs patient population.   Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(7):821-829. doi:10.1001/archinte.163.7.821PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    35.
    Bradley  KA, Kivlahan  DR, Zhou  XH,  et al.  Using alcohol screening results and treatment history to assess the severity of at-risk drinking in Veterans Affairs primary care patients.   Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2004;28(3):448-455. doi:10.1097/01.ALC.0000117836.38108.38PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    36.
    Hagman  BT.  Toward efficient screening for DSM-5 alcohol use disorders in college students: performance of the AUDIT-C.   Addict Disord Their Treat. 2015;14(1):1-15. doi:10.1097/ADT.0000000000000038PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    37.
    Schwab  KA, Ivins  B, Cramer  G,  et al.  Screening for traumatic brain injury in troops returning from deployment in Afghanistan and Iraq: initial investigation of the usefulness of a short screening tool for traumatic brain injury.   J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2007;22(6):377-389. doi:10.1097/01.HTR.0000300233.98242.87PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    38.
    US Department of Veterans Affairs. VA directive 2010-012: Screening and evaluation of possible traumatic brain injury in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) veterans. Published March 8, 2010. Accessed January 7, 2021. https://www.va.gov/optometry/docs/vha_directive_2010-012_screening_and_evaluation_of_possible_tbi_in_oef-oif_veterans.pdf
    39.
    Weathers  FW, Litz  BT, Keane  TM,  et al. The PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). Published 2013. Accessed January 7, 2021. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/assessment/adult-sr/ptsd-checklist.asp
    40.
    Weathers  FW, Bovin  MJ, Lee  DJ,  et al.  The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5): development and initial psychometric evaluation in military veterans.   Psychol Assess. 2018;30(3):383-395. doi:10.1037/pas0000486PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    41.
    Aziz  MA, Kenford  S.  Comparability of telephone and face-to-face interviews in assessing patients with posttraumatic stress disorder.   J Psychiatr Pract. 2004;10(5):307-313. doi:10.1097/00131746-200409000-00004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    42.
    Magruder  KM, Frueh  BC, Knapp  RG,  et al.  Prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder in Veterans Affairs primary care clinics.   Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2005;27(3):169-179. doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2004.11.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    43.
    Schnurr  PP, Spiro  A  III, Vielhauer  MJ,  et al  Trauma in the lives of older men: findings from the Normative Aging Study.   J Clin Geropsych. 2002;8(3):175-187. doi:10.1023/A:1015992110544Google ScholarCrossref
    44.
    Mackinnon  A.  A spreadsheet for the calculation of comprehensive statistics for the assessment of diagnostic tests and inter-rater agreement.   Comput Biol Med. 2000;30(3):127-134. doi:10.1016/S0010-4825(00)00006-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    45.
    Cicchetti  DV.  Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology.   Psych Assess. 1994;6(4):284-290. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284Google ScholarCrossref
    46.
    Congressional Budget Office. The Veterans Health Administration’s treatment of PTSD and traumatic brain injury among recent combat veterans. Published February 2012. Accessed January 7, 2021. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-congress-2011-2012/reports/02-09-PTSD_0.pdf
    47.
    Tanielian  TL, Jaycox  L, eds. Invisible wounds of war: psychological and cognitive injuries, their consequences, and services to assist recovery. RAND Corporation. Published 2008. Accessed January 7, 2021. https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG720.html
    48.
    Chang  ET, Zulman  DM, Nelson  KM,  et al.  Use of general primary care, specialized primary care, and other Veterans Affairs services among high-risk veterans.   JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(6):e208120. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.8120PubMedGoogle Scholar
    49.
    Leung  LB, Rubenstein  LV, Post  EP,  et al.  Association of Veterans Affairs primary care mental health integration with care access among men and women veterans.   JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(10):e2020955. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.20955PubMedGoogle Scholar
    ×