CLINICAL UTILITY OF IMPACT OF EVENT-SCALE-REVISED FOR DSM-5 POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

Abstract Background The Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) is one of the most widely used self-report measures of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), though it was based on the DSM-IV Diagnostic criteria.1 The previous studies have suggested a cutoff point of the IES-R according to DSM-IV.2 Aims & Objectives The aim of this study is to investigate whether the IES-R is applicable within the DSM-5 nomenclature and to determine the cutoff point for DSM-5 PTSD diagnosis. Methods A total of 238 subjects, recruited from multiple psychiatric centers, participated in this study, including 67 with PTSD, 72 with psychiatric controls, and 99 with healthy controls. All subjects completed the Korean version of the structured clinical interview for DSM-5 Research Version to confirm the presence of PTSD, the Korean version of the PTSD checklist for DSM-5 (K-PCL-5), the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), and the Spielberger State Trait Anxiety Inventory. Results The IES-R presented good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.95). The IES-R was correlated highly with K-PCL-5. Factor analysis identified five factors in the IES-R, which we labeled as intrusion, avoidance, hyperarousal, sleep disturbance, and numbness-dissociation. The suggested cutoff score for PTSD was 25 of the IES-R with a sensitivity of 86.57 and a specificity of 82.46. Discussion & Conclusion These results demonstrated the good concurrent validity with current DSM-5 PTSD scale and adequate diagnostic utility for screening current DSM-5 PTSD. This study suggests that a cutoff score of 25 on the IES-R should be considered when the scale is used to screen for DSM-5 PTSD diagnosisa References 1)Weiss, DS 2007, Cross-Cultural Assessment of Psychological Trauma and PTSD, Springer, Boston, MA. Eun H-J 2005, 2) A study on reliability and validity of the Korean version of impact of event scale-revised, J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc, 44(3), pp. 303–310.