A confirmatory factor analysis of the PTSD checklist 5 in veteran and college student samples

An important change in the conceptualization of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been the shift from a three-factor model used in the DSM-IV-TR to the current four-factor model used in DSM-5. Early research initially supported the three-factor model, but most recent data suggest a four-factor model provides the best fit. Still other research has examined evidence for a five-factor model that would include depression sequelae. By way of a confirmatory factor analysis, we demonstrate the reliability of DSM-5 PTSD criteria clustering in a sample of 124 OEF/OIF/OND Veterans treated at a VAMC (49% white, 89% men) and a sample of 737 college students (48% white, 78% women). All participants were trauma-exposed, and completed the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5. The current study shows both samples best support a five-factor model over two four factor models considered for the DSM-5, though none provided better than moderate fit. Implications of the current findings regarding the reliability of the new DSM-5 criteria of PTSD will be discussed

Comparison of PTSD Symptom Centrality in Two College Student Samples

Network analysis is becoming more widely used as a method of understanding the structure and potential causal and influential relationships between symptoms within and across psychiatric syndromes such as posttraumatic stress disorder. Because large samples are often needed to yield more stable findings in network analysis, researchers often struggle to overcome limitations associated with small sample size. So, researchers often combine samples to ensure appropriate statistical power for analyses. Little research has been done, however, to determine whether such strategies are appropriate. The present study evaluates the network structure and indices of two college student samples (N = 668 and 456) from mid-sized cities to examine similarities and differences that might inform whether similar samples can be combined for network analysis. The findings suggest that the overall network structures are not different based on a network comparison analysis; however, centrality stability coefficients for centrality indices across both networks were below recommended cut-offs, indicating that the networks were generally unstable. We discuss the implications for these findings in the paper, highlighting that network comparison alone is likely insufficient in determining whether or not to combine samples for network analysis

Parental influences on sperm banking attempts among adolescent males newly diagnosed with cancer

Objective To investigate the influence of parental sociodemographic, communication, and psychological factors on sperm collection attempts among at-risk adolescent males newly diagnosed with cancer. Design Prospective, single group, observational study design. Setting Pediatric oncology centers. Patient(s) Parents (N = 144) of 122 newly diagnosed adolescent males at increased risk for infertility secondary to cancer therapy. Intervention(s) Survey-based assessment of parent factors associated with adolescent collection attempts. Main Outcome Measure(s) Attempt of manual collection of sperm. Result(s) Parental recommendation to bank sperm (odds ratio [OR] 3.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18–11.76) and perceived self-efficacy to facilitate banking (OR 1.20; 95% CI 1.02–1.41) were associated with an increased likelihood of making a collection attempt. Conclusion(s) Parental recommendation to bank is a critical influence for sperm banking among adolescent males newly diagnosed with cancer. These findings highlight the importance of effective communication between parents, patients, and health-care teams when discussing preservation options. Parent perceptions of their ability to facilitate sperm banking at the time of diagnosis should also be targeted in future interventions. Clinical Trial Registration Number NCT0115226