Introduction to the special feature on complex PTSD

This issue contains a Special Feature—an example of the changes I pledged when I took over editorship of the Journal of Traumatic Stress (JTS; Weiss, 2011)—a discussion and analysis of the current status of complex posttraumatic stress disorder (CPTSD) with regard to the DSM-5. Spurred by a report on best practices for clinicians from the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ISTSS) Task Force for CPTSD (Cloitre et al., 2011), I invited Resick et al. (2012a) to submit a comprehensive review of the literature about CPTSD. The reviews of that manuscript that I solicited evolved into a set of comments (Bryant, 2012; Goodman, 2012; Herman, 2012; Lindauer, 2012) and, as is JTS policy, Resick et al. (2012b) were offered and accepted the chance to craft a reply. The status of CPTSD is controversial, and as the contributions note, the controversy is not new. My goal in placing the articles in JTS was to stimulate discussion and thought about CPTSD, the nature of evidence, the nature of mental health diagnosis and mental health disorder, and finally the role that official and organized institutions (the American Psychiatric Association [APA] and the World Health Organization [WHO]) play in the advancement of understanding and in the shaping of research and scientific agendas. At the very least, I have been successful in that goal in one case: As I edited the contributions my thinking about these matters stimulated my decision to craft the Editorial included in this issue. I am hopeful that authors of empirical work addressing one or more of the many questions raised in this set of articles will help JTS present these issues to our readership and the field over the next several years. I want to make explicit that the appearance of the extended review by Resick et al. (2012a) does not constitute either an endorsement or rejection of its conclusion, any more than the appearance of the comments represent an endorsement or rejection of their conclusion(s). I have my own thoughts about the conceptual approach, and these are set forth in the Editorial, but