Skip to main content
    Trauma & stress · 5 items · 0–5 · Prins A, Bovin MJ, Smolenski DJ, et al. (2016). J Gen Intern Med.

    Primary Care PTSD Screen for DSM-5: Scoring, Cutoffs & Interpretation

    Five-item yes/no screen for post-traumatic stress in primary care.

    PC-PTSD-50 / 5

    Over the past month, how often have you been bothered by…

    Scored locally - nothing leaves this page

    01Had nightmares about a stressful experience or thought about it when you did not want to?
    02Tried hard not to think about it or went out of your way to avoid situations that reminded you of it?
    03Been constantly on guard, watchful, or easily startled?
    04Felt numb or detached from people, activities, or your surroundings?
    05Felt guilty or unable to stop blaming yourself or others for the experience or any problems it caused?
    0 of 50 / 5

    02 - The clinician's brief

    Last reviewed: · Reviewed by Lotte Kjær Svalberg

    01 - What it measures

    What this scale measures.

    The PC-PTSD-5 is a five-item screen for probable post-traumatic stress disorder aligned with DSM-5 criteria. It opens with a trauma-exposure gate: respondents who have never experienced a traumatic event score 0 and answer nothing further. Those who have then answer five yes/no questions about the past month, covering intrusion (nightmares, unwanted thoughts), avoidance, hypervigilance and startle, numbing or detachment, and trauma-related guilt or blame.

    The total is simply the number of "yes" responses, 0 to 5. It takes under a minute and is designed for primary care and general medical settings, where trauma exposure is common but rarely volunteered. It is a case-finding gate, not a severity measure: a positive screen indicates the need for structured assessment, typically the PCL-5 followed by a diagnostic interview.

    02 - Origin & purpose

    Where it comes from.

    The screen was developed at the US Department of Veterans Affairs National Center for PTSD by Annabel Prins and colleagues, published in 2016 as a revision of the four-item PC-PTSD (Prins et al., 2003), which was built against DSM-IV criteria and mandated for routine screening across VA and Department of Defense clinics. The DSM-5 revision reworked the trauma-exposure stem and added a fifth item capturing guilt and blame, reflecting the new negative-alterations-in-cognition-and-mood cluster.

    The purpose is efficient universal screening. PTSD prevalence in veteran primary care runs at two to three times the general-population rate, and untreated PTSD is associated with higher healthcare utilisation and medical morbidity. A screen this short can be administered verbally by any clinician within an ordinary consultation - and in the validation study patients said they preferred exactly that, being asked by their own doctor rather than filling in a form.

    03 - Scoring & cutoffs

    How scoring works.

    Count the "yes" responses (0-5); a "no" at the trauma gate scores 0. There is no single mandated cut-point - the choice is a trade-off documented unusually clearly in the validation work. A cut of 3 is optimally sensitive (0.95) and suits primary care screening, where missing cases is the greater harm. A cut of 4 is optimally efficient (sensitivity 0.83, specificity 0.91) and suits higher-prevalence settings where false positives strain resources. A cut of 5 maximises specificity (0.97). A large national VA study (Bovin et al., 2021) subsequently recommended 4 overall, with 3 in women.

    Score
    Severity
    Interpretation
    0–2
    Negative screen
    Below the cutoff. PTSD is unlikely on this screen.
    3–5
    Positive screen
    At or above the cutoff of 3. Probable PTSD; assess further with the PCL-5 or a structured interview.

    04 - Validation evidence

    How well it performs.

    In the development study (Prins et al., 2016; 398 veterans in VA primary care, PTSD prevalence 14.3% against a modified MINI interview), overall diagnostic accuracy was excellent: AUC 0.941 (95% CI 0.912-0.969), similar to the PHQ-9's performance for depression. At the optimally sensitive cut of 3, sensitivity was 0.95, specificity 0.85 and negative predictive value 0.99 - a score below 3 makes PTSD very unlikely in a primary-care population. At a cut of 4, sensitivity was 0.83 with specificity 0.91. The earlier four-item PC-PTSD showed good test-retest reliability (r = 0.83). Bovin and colleagues (2021) replicated strong accuracy and acceptability in a national VA sample, recommending a cut of 4 (3 for women), and Lathan and colleagues (2023) extended the evidence to a trauma-exposed, socioeconomically vulnerable civilian population.

    0.941
    AUC

    Prins 2016, n = 398

    0.95
    Sensitivity at cut ≥3

    Prins 2016

    0.91
    Specificity at cut ≥4

    Prins 2016

    0.99
    NPV at cut ≥3

    Prins 2016, prevalence 14.3%

    05 - How it compares

    How it compares to the alternatives.

    Instrument
    Items
    Time
    When to reach for it
    PC-PTSD-5
    5 + gate
    <1 min
    The primary-care gate. Screening only.
    20
    5-10 min
    DSM-5 symptom severity, provisional diagnosis and change monitoring; the natural second step after a positive screen.
    CAPS-5
    30
    45-60 min
    Clinician interview; the gold-standard diagnostic assessment, required to confirm a diagnosis.
    PC-PTSD
    4
    <1 min
    The DSM-IV predecessor; superseded, still encountered in older records and pathways.
    IES-R
    22
    10 min
    Older self-report of subjective distress after a specific event; not aligned to DSM-5 and not diagnostic.
    10
    5 min
    Measures perceived stress, not PTSD - a different construct despite the adjacent name.

    06 - When to use it

    Right tool, wrong tool.

    The PC-PTSD-5 earns its place as a first-stage gate: cheap enough to ask everyone, accurate enough that a negative screen is genuinely reassuring in primary care. Its value collapses the moment it is asked to do more than that - grade severity, track treatment or stand in for a diagnosis.

    Reach for it when

    • -Universal or targeted screening in primary care and general medical settings
    • -A quick gate before investing in the PCL-5
    • -Verbal administration within a consultation
    • -Re-screening at intervals in populations with high trauma exposure

    Reach for something else when

    • -Measuring symptom severity or monitoring treatment response - it has no severity gradient worth tracking (use the PCL-5)
    • -Diagnosis - a positive screen is a prompt for assessment, never a label
    • -Children and adolescents
    • -Specialist mental-health settings with high PTSD prevalence, where a higher cut-point (4 or 5) is usually more defensible than 3

    07 - Confidence & precision

    Reading the score with care.

    As a five-point count of yes/no answers, the PC-PTSD-5 has no meaningful SEM or minimal clinically important difference; precision is better expressed through predictive values, which depend on the base rate. In the development sample (prevalence 14.3%), a score below 3 carried a negative predictive value of 0.99, while the positive predictive value at 3 was 0.51 - about half of positive screens will not have PTSD on interview, which is expected and acceptable for a first-stage screen. In lower-prevalence settings PPV falls further; plan the follow-up pathway before deploying the screen.

    08 - Limitations

    What it cannot tell you.

    The development sample was a convenience sample of predominantly older male veterans, and the diagnostic criterion was a DSM-IV MINI module modified for DSM-5 rather than a validated DSM-5 interview such as the CAPS-5. Optimal cut-points vary by population and sex - evidence in civilian, female and younger groups is growing but thinner. The trauma-exposure gate means under-reporting of trauma silently produces false negatives. It cannot grade severity or track change, and a positive screen says nothing about which trauma or how impairing the symptoms are.

    Common questions from clinicians

    FAQ

    References

    Source literature.

    1. [1]Prins A, Bovin MJ, Smolenski DJ, et al. The Primary Care PTSD Screen for DSM-5 (PC-PTSD-5): development and evaluation within a veteran primary care sample. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(10):1206-1211. (2016)
    2. [2]Bovin MJ, Kimerling R, Weathers FW, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and acceptability of the Primary Care Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Screen for the DSM-5 among US veterans. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(2):e2036733. (2021)
    3. [3]Prins A, Ouimette P, Kimerling R, et al. The primary care PTSD screen (PC-PTSD): development and operating characteristics. Prim Care Psychiatry. 2003;9(1):9-14. (2003)
    4. [4]Lathan EC, Petri JM, Haynes T, et al. Evaluating the performance of the Primary Care Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Screen for DSM-5 (PC-PTSD-5) in a trauma-exposed, socioeconomically vulnerable patient population. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2023;30(4):791-803. (2023)
    5. [5]Williams JL, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the Primary Care PTSD for DSM-5 screen (PC-PTSD-5) in demographic and diagnostic subgroups of veterans. J Gen Intern Med. 2024. (2024)

    Scale without compromise

    See how Aisel removes friction where it costs most. A 20-minute walkthrough tailored to your clinic.