See "through the front line": reliability of questionnaires in wartime

Abstract

Diagnosis and screening of individuals, both civilian and military, is typically done through a clinical interview and\or self-report questionnaires. This information is used to adjust treatment strategies, psychological and psychotherapeutic interventions, and to predict the patient's condition. In modern science, methods that have been shown to be effective and have satisfactory test validity and reliability are considered the gold standard for testing. Adhering to this standard ensures that the tool being used is performing its intended functions to a certain degree of quality providing decent results. Many Ukrainian studies are based on methods that were adapted or created during the era of the Soviet Union and have not been reviewed since. On the other hand, we have methods that were translated from another languages without going through the proper adaptation process. These questionnaires are used in a clinical practice too, by psychologists, psychiatrists and psychotherapists. Moreover, there is no known or open data about the performance of these tests amid the war, both in original and in translated versions.
 The aim of this article was to explore the reliability of the most frequently used screening tools. The study took place in one of the rehabilitation center in Kyiv, Ukraine. Overall, 28 participants joined, all of whom were soldiers who are currently enrolled in the Armed forces of Ukraine. Measurements were taken 3 times with a one week gaps. GAD-7 and STAI (modified by Hanin) were used to screen anxiety, PCL-5 for PTSD screening and ISI helped us to determine sleep problems. The GAD-7, ISI, and PCL-5 questionnaires, in the versions we tested, demonstrated more than satisfactory levels of reliability and are recommended by the authors for use in clinical conditions and for screening soldiers in the armed forces. The STAI, on the other hand, showed unsatisfactory indicators and is not recommended for use in screening procedures or for research purposes. In conclusion, it is recommended that Ukrainian researchers adopt international methods properly, conducting validation studies adhering to so-called “golden standards”.