Meta-analyses are essential to summarize the results of the growing number of neuroimaging studies in psychiatry, neurology and allied disciplines. Image-based meta-analyses use full image information (i.e. the statistical parametric maps) and well-established statistics, but images are rarely available making them highly unfeasible. Peak-probability meta-analyses such as activation likelihood estimation (ALE) or multilevel kernel density analysis (MKDA) are more feasible as they only need reported peak coordinates. Signed-differences methods, such as signed differential mapping (SDM) build upon the positive features of existing peak-probability methods and enable meta-analyses of studies comparing patients with controls. In this paper we present a new version of SDM, named Effect Size SDM (ES-SDM), which enables the combination of statistical parametric maps and peak coordinates and uses well-established statistics. We validated the new method by comparing the results of an ES-SDM meta-analysis of studies on the brain response to fearful faces with the results of a pooled analysis of the original individual data. The results showed that ES-SDM is a valid and reliable coordinate-based method, whose performance might be additionally increased by including statistical parametric maps. We anticipate that ES-SDM will be a helpful tool for researchers in the fields of psychiatry, neurology and allied disciplines.

The purpose of this study is to assess the psychometric properties of a French version of the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), a self-report measure of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, and to further validate the existing English version of the measure. Undergraduate students (n = 838 English, n = 262 French) completed the PCL-5 as well as other self-report symptom measures of PTSD and depression online. Both the English and French versions PCL-5 total scores demonstrated excellent internal consistency (English: α = .95; French: α = .94), and strong convergent and divergent validity. Strong internal consistency was also observed for each of the four subscales for each version (α’s > .79). Test-retest reliability for the French version of the measure was also very good (r = .89). Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the four-factor DSM-5 model was not a good fit of the data. The seven-factor hybrid model best fit the data in each sample, but was only marginally superior to the six-factor anhedonia model. The French version of the PCL-5 demonstrated the same psychometric qualities as both the English version of the same measure and previous versions of the PCL. Thus clinicians serving French-speaking clients now have access to this highly used screening instrument. With regards to the structural validity of the PCL-5 and of the new PTSD diagnostic structure of the DSM-5, additional research is warranted. Replication of our results in clinical samples is much needed.