Validity and reliability of the Structured Clinical Interview for the Trauma and Loss Spectrum (SCI-TALS)

65Citations
Citations of this article
47Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: DSM-IV identifies three stress response disorders (acute stress (ASD), post-traumatic stress (PTSD) and adjustment disorders (AD)) that derive from specific life events. An additional condition of complicated grief (CG), well described in the literature, is triggered by bereavement. Methods: This paper reports on the reliability and validity of the Structured Clinical Interview for Trauma and Loss Spectrum (SCI-TALS) developed to assess the spectrum of stress response. The instrument is based on a spectrum model that emphasizes soft signs, low-grade symptoms, subthreshold syndromes, as well as temperamental and personality traits comprising clinical and subsyndromal manifestations. Study participants, enrolled at 6 Italian Departments of Psychiatry, included consecutive patients with PTSD (N = 48), CG (N = 44), and controls (N = 48). Results: We showed good reliability and validity of the SCI-TALS. Domain scores were significantly higher in participants with PTSD or CG compared to controls. There were high correlations between specific SCI-TALS domains and corresponding scores on established measures of similar constructs. Participants endorsing grief and loss events reported similar scores on all instruments, except those with CG who scored significantly higher on the domain of grief reactions. Conclusion: These results support the existence of a specific grief-related condition and the proposal that different forms of stress response have similar manifestations. © 2008 Dell'Osso et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Dell’Osso, L., Katherine, M. K., Carmassi, C., Rucci, P., Maser, J. D., Frank, E., … Cassano, G. B. (2008). Validity and reliability of the Structured Clinical Interview for the Trauma and Loss Spectrum (SCI-TALS). Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health, 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-0179-4-2

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free