We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Europe Regional Medical Command, Richard Trotta, and Robert Johnson. We express appreciation to Carl Castro for consultation and support of the research. We thank Angela Salvi, Christina Terra, Andrea Bellis, Kelley Rice, Deena Carr, and Nicol Sinclair for their dedicated contributions to the study.
Contrasting approaches to psychological screening with U.S. combat soldiers†
Article first published online: 21 DEC 2007
Copyright © 2007 International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies
Journal of Traumatic Stress
Volume 20, Issue 6, pages 965–975, December 2007
How to Cite
Wright, K. M., Bliese, P. D., Thomas, J. L., Adler, A. B., Eckford, R. D. and Hoge, C. W. (2007), Contrasting approaches to psychological screening with U.S. combat soldiers. J. Traum. Stress, 20: 965–975. doi: 10.1002/jts.20279
Material has been reviewed by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. There is no objection to its publication. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense or the U.S. government.
- Issue published online: 21 DEC 2007
- Article first published online: 21 DEC 2007
Psychological screening can be conducted using global screens, single items, symptom-based scales, or composite measures. These four different approaches were evaluated against structured clinical interviews in studies with U.S. soldiers preparing to deploy and returning from combat operations in Iraq. Three samples (N = 337, N = 574, and N = 348) were screened to assess the effectiveness of a short global measure of distress, a single self-referral item, symptom-specific scales selected for the target population, and a composite instrument that included a combination of clinical domains. A composite screen with measures of posttraumatic stress, depression, and alcohol problems, along with a single self-referral item, performed most effectively.