The stressor Criterion-A1 and PTSD: A matter of opinion?
Introduction
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is unusual in psychiatric nomenclature because the aetiological agent, namely the traumatic stressor, is defined within the diagnostic criteria implying a direct casual link between a definable external factor and consecutive symptoms (Maier, 2006). Since definition of stress disorder in DSM-III (American Psychiatric Association, 1980), the effects of traumatic stress have been widely researched. However, the definition of the boundaries of the stressor “A1” criterion has emerged as one of the most controversial aspects of the diagnostic criteria (Breslau & Davis, 1987; March, 1993; Solomon & Canino, 1990; Spitzer, First, & Wakefield, 2007). For example, according to DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) to qualify as a traumatic event such an event should involve “actual or threatened death or serious injury, or threat to the physical integrity of self or others” (p. 427). In contrast, ICD-10 (World Health Organization, 1992) defines a traumatic event as being an event “of an exceptionally threatening or catastrophic nature, which is likely to cause pervasive distress in almost anyone” (p. 147). The lack of clarity and vagueness of the Criterion-A1 language has consequently lead to an over-application of the construct of ‘trauma’ resulting in what McNally has termed a “conceptual bracket creep” (McNally, 2003, Spitzer et al., 2007), resulting in the abuse of this diagnosis in real life settings (Rosen & Taylor, 2007).
Considerable debate exists about whether or not events that typically do not meet Criterion-A1 (referred to as life events, non-traumatic events or low magnitude events) can result in the development of PTSD (Avina & O’Donohue, 2002; Gold, Marx, Soler-Baillo, & Sloan, 2005; McNally, 2003). It is implied in DSM-IV that an extremely traumatic event has a unique etiological effect in comparison to less dramatic life events and that there is a quantitatively and qualitatively different relationship between these two types of events and consequent psychopathology (Lindy, Green, & Grace, 1987). If this is the case, then while a person who has experienced a “life event” may describe this event as “traumatic,” a diagnosis of PTSD generally cannot be given if that event does not meet DSM-IV PTSD Criterion-A1. In the absence of sufficient evidence to support a diagnosis of PTSD, adjustment disorder would become the relevant diagnosis, as this disorder requires an identifiable stressor of any severity. The real conundrum, therefore, is how do we define a stressor as “traumatic” without relying on our own subjective interpretation of the definition of Criterion-A1 and, if PTSD symptoms occur in response to life events, should Criterion-A1 be widened to incorporate such stressors (Avina & O’Donohue, 2002; Gold et al., 2005)?
A number of cases have been reported whereby PTSD symptoms have been experienced as a result of traditionally defined “non-traumatic” or “life events.” For example, in response to miscarriage, spousal affair (Helzer, Robins, & McEvoy, 1987), marital disruption and collapse of adoption arrangements (Burstein, 1985), non-serious nor life-threatening physical assault (Seidler & Wagner, 2006), work-related stressors, caring for a chronically ill loved one (Scott & Stradling, 1994), and loss of cattle due to foot and mouth disease (Olff, Koeter, Van Haaften, Kersten, & Gersons, 2005).
Inconsistent findings, however, have been reported in studies comparing PTSD prevalence rates following Criterion-A1 and other non-traumatic life events. Kilpatrick et al. (1998) examined prevalence of PTSD in a sample who had experienced no event, a “low magnitude event” (non-traumatic life event) or a “high magnitude event” (Criterion-A1 event) and found only a minimal increase in overall PTSD prevalence when broadening the A1 criterion to include low magnitude events such as the non-violent death of a loved one, serious illness and sudden divorce. In a similar study, Hovens and Van der Ploeg (1993) found no significant differences between the non-traumatic life event and no event groups on self-reported PTSD scores using both the MMPI-PTSD and the Mississippi PTSD scale for civilians (Keane, Caddell, & Taylor, 1988; Keane, Malloy, & Fairbank, 1984), but significantly higher PTSD scores in those classified as experiencing a Criterion-A1 event.
In contrast, most other studies have reported similar or greater mean PTSD scores and/or PTSD prevalence in individuals reporting non-traumatic life events compared to those who report Criterion-A1 events (Bodkin, Pope, Detke, & Hudson, 2007; Gold et al., 2005, Mol et al., 2005; Solomon & Canino, 1990; Spitzer et al., 2000).
In general, studies examining the prevalence of Criterion-A1 events and PTSD utilize one of three methods of categorization; (1) a single rater determines whether an event meets Criterion-A1 according to his/her interpretation of the definition specified in ICD-10 or DSM-IV (Roemer, Orsillo, Borkovec, & Litz, 1998); (2) multiple raters independently rate the event with majority agreement being required before an event is categorized as meeting Criterion-A1 according to the definition specified in ICD-10 or DSM-IV (Hovens & Van der Ploeg, 1993); (3) multiple raters independently rate events with unanimous agreement being required before an event is categorized as meeting Criterion-A1 according to the definition specified in ICD-10 or DSM-IV (Bodkin et al., 2007). Other studies appear to use multiple raters, who discuss and reach a consensus as a group as to which events meet Criterion-A1 according to the definition specified in ICD-10 or DSM-IV (Gold et al., 2005; Goodman, Corcoran, Turner, Yuan, & Green, 1998).
One problem inherent in both the single and multiple rater categorization systems is the level of subjectively required on behalf of the raters to interpret Criterion-A1. The use of multiple raters (rather than a single rater) is an attempt to reduce such subjectivity. However, further discrepancies then arise according to which method of agreement is employed—majority or unanimous. This dilemma is illustrated in a study of 27 psychiatric inpatients conducted by Hovens and Van der Ploeg (1993). Using a majority method of scoring, 5 raters categorized 15 events as meeting DSM-IV Criterion-A1. In contrast however, only 1 event was unanimously agreed upon by all 5 raters as meeting DSM-IV Criterion-A1. Such discrepancy in prevalence of Criterion-A1 events between the unanimous and majority coding methods highlights the need to consolidate the methods of event categorization across studies. Although the unanimous method of classification in this instance may reduce categorization discrepancies, it also has the potential to lower PTSD prevalence rates due to the lower overall prevalence of Criterion-A1 events. The impact of categorization differences is somewhat overlooked in research into PTSD resulting from Criterion-A1 and non-traumatic life events, but could account for some of the discrepancies that have emerged in the literature.
The current study is the first to provide a detailed examination of the impact of event categorization on the prevalence rates of trauma and PTSD. There are three primary aims of this study. First, to explore in detail the types of events that lead to the most disagreement among raters. Second, to provide a descriptive account of whether the prevalence of Criterion-A1 events and non-traumatic life events differs according to the categorization method employed (single rater, multiple raters—majority method, multiple raters—unanimous method). Third, to statistically examine the subsequent differences in lifetime PTSD prevalence resulting from Criterion-A1 events and non-traumatic life events, and to determine whether PTSD prevalence also differs according to the type of categorization method used.
Section snippets
Participants
Participants were part of a larger longitudinal study examining the psychiatric outcomes of childhood exposure to a natural disaster. The original cohort, recruited from 1983 to 1985, comprised 806 children aged between 5 and 12 years who were attending primary school in a rural region of South Australia, vastly devastated by the 1983 Ash Wednesday Bushfires (McFarlane, 1987b; McFarlane, Policansky, & Irwin, 1987). A control group of 725 unexposed primary school children from a
Categorization of traumatic and non-traumatic events
Overall, unanimous agreement occurred for 683 (79.4%) events. The greatest level of agreement between raters occurred for events that were witnessed (88.7%), followed by events that happened to self (84.9%), and then events that were learnt about (63.1%). Specific event types associated with the highest level of disagreement included: being threatened/harassed without a weapon (unanimous agreement on only 34.2% of occasions), child physical abuse (66.7%), and events that were learnt about but
Discussion
This study is the first published report detailing the impact of event categorization on the prevalence rates of trauma and PTSD. The first aim of the study was to explore the types of events that lead to the highest level of disagreement among raters. Overall, complete agreement between the three raters was attained for 79.4% of the events. This is slightly lower than the level of agreement (87%: 90 out of 103) between two raters reported in a study by Bodkin et al. (2007) but higher than the
References (55)
- et al.
Is PTSD caused by traumatic stress?
Journal of Anxiety Disorders
(2007) - et al.
Psychopathology following trauma: the role of subjective experience
Journal of Affective Disorders
(2005) - et al.
Prevalence of PTSD in a community sample of older adolescents
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
(1998) - et al.
Posttraumatic stress disorder after pregnancy loss
General Hospital Psychiatry
(2001) - et al.
Is life stress more traumatic than traumatic stress?
Journal of Anxiety Disorders
(2005) Post-traumatic stress disorder revisited: deconstructing the A-criterion
Medical Hypotheses
(2006)Posttraumatic phenomena in a longitudinal study of children following a natural disaster
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
(1987)- et al.
Emotional response at the time of a potentially traumatizing event and PTSD symptomatology: a preliminary retrospective analysis of the DSM-IV Criterion A-2
Journal of Behavior Therapy & Experimental Psychiatry
(1998) - et al.
Pseudo-PTSD
Journal of Anxiety Disorders
(2007) - et al.
Sex in Australia: reproductive experiences and reproductive health among a representative sample of women
Australia and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
(2003)
Appropriateness of DSM-III–R criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder
Comprehensive Psychiatry
Saving PTSD from itself in DSM-V
Journal of Anxiety Disorders
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
The psychometric properties of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
Mental health and wellbeing: profile of adults, Australia, 1997 (No. 4326.40.001)
The National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing: user's guide, 1997 (No. 4327.0)
Sexual harassment and PTSD: Is sexual harassment diagnosable trauma?
Journal of Traumatic Stress
Criminal victimization, posttraumatic stress disorder and comorbid psychopathology among a community sample of women
Journal of Traumatic Stress
Traumatic stress disorders following first-trimester spontaneous abortion
Journal of Family Practice
Posttraumatic stress disorder. The stressor criterion
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders
Trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder in the community: the 1996 Detroit Area Survey of Trauma
Archives of General Psychiatry
Meta-analysis of risk factors for posttraumatic stress disorder in trauma-exposed adults
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Posttraumatic stress disorder
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
Post-traumatic stress disorder: findings from the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-being
Psychological Medicine
Assessing traumatic event exposure: general issues and preliminary findings for the Stressful Life Events Screening Questionnaire
Journal of Traumatic Stress
Post-traumatic stress disorder: the role of trauma, pre-existing psychiatric disorders, and gender
European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience
Cited by (79)
Social trauma and its association with posttraumatic stress disorder and social anxiety disorder
2020, Journal of Anxiety DisordersCitation Excerpt :All three assessors were blind to group assignment when conducting the content analyses. Adopting a methodology based on Joffe and Yardley (2004); see also Lipton et al., 2010; Purdon & Holdaway, 2006), we created separate themes for the content of the social trauma, prior to examining the data, by reviewing the existing literature on negative social events (with reference to, e.g., Brook & Schmidt, 2008; Carleton et al., 2011; Gold et al., 2005; Levinson, Langer, & Rodebaugh, 2013; Olweus, 1993; Rigby, 2002; Van Hooff, McFarlane, Baur, Abraham, & Barnes, 2009). The coders subsequently attempted to categorize the data, and some themes were modified when they were deemed not appropriate for this data set.
Assessing stress-related treatment needs among girls at risk for poor functional outcomes: The impact of cumulative adversity, criterion traumas, and non-criterion events
2017, Journal of Anxiety DisordersCitation Excerpt :Although Criterion-A modifications have occurred during DSM revisions (e.g., events are no longer required to be “outside the range of usual human experience”), the criterion event requirement still captures more extreme exposure-types and restricts diagnosis on event-type regardless of symptom severity or impairment. While narrowing the criteria to reduce over-pathologizing individuals is important, the result can be problematic because: (1) there is disagreement among clinicians and researchers with regards to whether some events qualify as Criterion-A (Van Hooff, McFarlane, Baur, Abraham, & Barnes, 2009); (2) research indicates that non-Criterion events are often associated with more PTSD-type symptomatology, greater symptom severity than Criterion-A qualifying events, and higher rates of PTSD “diagnosis” when Criterion-A requirements are disregarded (Van Hooff et al., 2009; Anders, Frazier, & Frankfurt, 2011; Long et al., 2008); and (3) some non-qualifying events occurring during childhood (e.g., neglect, extended separations from caregivers) may have profound developmental consequences (Ford and Courtois, 2013). This issue is especially salient in populations experiencing high cumulative adversity, such as delinquents, whose adversities also include numerous non-Criterion events, which impact safety, security and livelihood (e.g., residential instability, death of a caregiver, poverty) (Lansing et al., 2016; Perkins-Dock, 2001; Dong, Anda, & Felitti, 2005; Evans & Kim, 2007; Jelleyman & Spencer, 2008).
A contextual approach to trauma experience: Lessons from life events research
2019, Psychological MedicineRethinking trauma-related psychopathology in the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP)
2024, Journal of Traumatic StressIdentifying Witnessed Suicides in National Violent Death Reporting System Narratives
2024, Healthcare (Switzerland)