Using the Moral Injury and Distress Scale to identify clinically meaningful moral injury.

Despite the proliferation of moral injury studies, a remaining gap is distinguishing moral injury from normative distress following exposure to potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs). Our goal was to leverage mental health and functional measures to identify clinically meaningful and functionally impairing moral injury using the Moral Injury and Distress Scale (MIDS). Participants who endorsed PMIE exposure (N = 645) were drawn from a population‐based sample of military veterans, health care workers, and first responders. Using signal detection methods, we identified the optimally efficient MIDS score for detecting clinically significant posttraumatic stress and depressive symptom severity, trauma‐related guilt, and functional impairment. The most efficient cut scores across outcomes converged between 24 and 27. We recommend a cut score of 27 given that roughly 70% of participants who screened positive on the MIDS at this threshold reported clinically significant mental health symptoms, and approximately 50% reported severe trauma‐related guilt and/or functional impairment. Overall, 10.2% of respondents exposed to a PMIE screened positive for moral injury at this threshold, particularly those who identified as a member of a minoritized racial or ethnic group (17.9%) relative to those who identified as White, non‐Hispanic (8.0%), aOR = 2.52, 95% CI [1.45, 4.42]. This is the first known study to establish a cut score indicative of clinically meaningful and impairing moral injury. Such scores may enhance clinicians' abilities to conduct measurement‐based moral injury care by enabling them to identify individuals at risk of negative outcomes and better understand risk and protective factors for moral injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]