This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Complementary and Alternative Medicine  • Stress  • Violence and Human Rights  • War  • Violence and Human Rights, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

H. Stefan Bracha, MD; Kentaro Hayashi, PhD

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

The March 2007 article by Baolu et al¹ is certainly timely. However, we disagree with their assertion that findings from their study, which was designed specifically for use with European civilians exposed to a civil war, "are highly relevant"^1(p284) for "international law" regarding interrogation procedures of terrorist-camp–trained detainees, eg, in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Baolu et al study has major methodological and conceptual limitations that severely limit its generalizability. Furthermore, the extremely broad conceptualization of Criterion A events that Baolu et al use arguably trivializes posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), doing an injustice to those who have experienced genuine torture or combat.

Methodological Issues

The Baolu et al study has several methodological limitations, especially with regard to sampling, content validity, and correlation computations.

Sampling. They state that "Once the interview was completed, each survivor was asked to list . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Cross-cultural Issues

PTSD Criterion A "Bracket Creep" Issues

AUTHOR INFORMATION


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?