Low reliability when determining criterion a for posttraumatic stress disorder from self-report descriptions of traumatic events: The need for transparent methods

OBJECTIVE

Exposure to a traumatic event is a primary criterion (Criterion A) for meeting Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Using self-report to establish diagnostic criteria in research has become more common, especially with internet-based research. However, some individuals may construe events as traumatic when they do not meet Criterion A. There has yet to be a test of interrater reliability (IRR) from self-report of traumatic events.

METHOD

Three graduate students in clinical psychology and three licensed psychologists rated Criterion A using the life events checklist (LEC), as well as the three modified LEC versions (specification of up to three index traumas; extension of part 2 of the LEC) aimed to increase IRR. One hundred participants completed each of the four versions of the LEC (N = 400). Bootstrapped permutation tests were used to estimate differences in IRR and to generate 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Overall, findings indicated fair-moderate IRR (Fleiss's kappa) κ = 0.428, 95% CI [0.379, 0.477]. The other versions of the LEC (including additional clarifying questions in part 2 of the LEC and/or opportunities to describe up to three traumas) did not meaningfully increase IRR.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate that relying on self-report from the LEC alone and/or single-rater assessment of open-text trauma descriptions is not recommended for determining whether a traumatic event meets Criterion A. We conclude that it is critical when collecting self-reported PTSD symptoms to provide a clear description of how Criterion A was assessed, initial agreement between raters, and how disagreements were resolved. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Rising to the Occasion of This COVID-19-Impacted Nation: Development, Implementation, and Feasibility of the Brief Assessment-Informed Skills Intervention for COVID-19 (BASIC)

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the global economy, physical health, and mental health. This pandemic, like previous viral outbreaks, has resulted in spikes in anxiety, depression, and stress. Even though millions of individuals face the physical health consequences of infection by COVID-19, even more individuals are confronted with the mental health consequences of this pandemic. This significantly increased demand for mental health services cannot be easily met by existing mental health systems, which often rely on courses of therapy to be delivered over months. Single session interventions (SSIs) may be one important approach to meeting this increased demand, as they are treatments designed to be delivered over the course of a single meeting. SSIs have been found to be effective for a range of mental health challenges, with durable effects lasting months to years later. Here, we describe an SSI designed for the COVID-19 pandemic. This Brief Assessment-informed Skills Intervention for COVID-19 (BASIC) program draws upon therapeutic skills from existing empirically supported treatments to target common presenting complaints due to this pandemic. We discuss the process of developing and implementing this intervention, as well as explore feasibility and initial clinical insights. In short, BASIC is an easy-to-adopt intervention that is designed to be effective in a single session, making it well-suited for handling the increased demand for mental health services due to COVID-19.