ArticleHealth psychology and behavioral medicine2023
Psychometric properties of the Global Psychotrauma Screen in the United States.
Article in Health psychology and behavioral medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Screening for psychotrauma related symptomatology: Greek adaptation and validation of the Global Psychotrauma Screen.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2026Article
- Evaluating the global psychotrauma screen total score using item response theory in an Italian community sample.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2026Article
- A comparison between dissociative subtypes of PTSD and CPTSD among trauma-exposed adolescents.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2026Article
- The impact of trauma and how to intervene: a narrative review of psychotraumatology over the past 15 years.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2025Article
- Assessing trauma-related symptomatology in the Netherlands: the Dutch Global Psychotrauma Screen (GPS).European journal of psychotraumatology · 2025Article
- Trauma web-based psychoeducational programme: systematic cultural adaptation and protocol for a feasibility-acceptability study.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2024Article
- Examining the clinical validity of the global psychotrauma screen in refugees.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Prior research assessing the psychometric properties of the Global Psychotrauma Screen provided support for its internal consistency reliability, construct validity, convergent validity, and divergent validity in several international samples, but not specifically in a U.S. subsample. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess psychometric properties of the GPS in the U.S. Method: This observational study included a convenience sample of individually recruited participants ( Results: The results showed acceptable internal consistency and test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and divergent validity of the GPS. The construct validity results supported a three-factor structure of the GPS symptoms. The GPS domains showed acceptable sensitivity and specificity with the cut-off scores of 3 for PTSD and 5 for CPTSD domains; and the scores of 1 for the anxiety, depression, and insomnia domains respectively. The GPS risk factors predicted the GPS symptom severity. Conclusions: This study provides new and additional evidence on the psychometric properties of the GPS which may help health care providers with the selection of an appropriate screening instrument for trauma-related transdiagnostic symptoms. The study limitations should be addressed in future research through the replication of EFA and CFA internationally with larger samples, and the inclusion of a reference standard for dissociation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.