|
|
||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LETTER |
B. Christopher Frueh is with the University of Hawaíi, Hilo. Jon D. Elhai is with the Disaster Mental Health Institute, University of South Dakota, Vermillion. Anouk L. Grubaugh is with the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and the Ralph H. Johnson Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Charleston. Todd C. Buckley is with the Blackstone Center for Cognitive and Behavioral Therapy, Hopkinton, MA.
Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to B. Christopher Frueh, PhD, Professor of Psychology, University of Hawaíi at Hilo, 200 West Kawili Street, Hilo, HI 96720 (e-mail: frueh@hawaii.edu).
|
|||
Rosen and Spitzer raise important issues that go beyond the scope of our initial commentary.1 As they and others have noted, there are important conceptual problems with the posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) construct as currently represented in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition,2–7 particularly the way traumatic events (criterion A1), peritraumatic emotions (criterion A2), traumatic event memories, and symptom overlap are incorporated.7 Many aspects of the construct are not internally consistent or supported by empirical research from the fields of memory, emotion, stress, trauma, or mood and anxiety disorders.8,9 Effectively addressing these concerns will alter our
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |