The Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation (MID) in Depersonalization Disorder: General Findings with a Clinical Emphasis on Memory and Identity Disturbances.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY Journal of Trauma & Dissociation Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1080/15299732.2022.2119634
Daphne Simeon, Margaret Knutelska
{"title":"The Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation (MID) in Depersonalization Disorder: General Findings with a Clinical Emphasis on Memory and Identity Disturbances.","authors":"Daphne Simeon,&nbsp;Margaret Knutelska","doi":"10.1080/15299732.2022.2119634","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation (MID) was administered to 23 participants diagnosed with DSM-IV-TR Depersonalization Disorder (DDD) by structured interview. The MID has not been previously examined in DDD and does not generate a diagnostic formula for the disorder. Mean MID score for the sample was modestly elevated at 18.54, and was significantly correlated with Dissociative Experiences Scale, Cambridge Depersonalization Scale, and Childhood Trauma Questionnaire scores. Criterion A (General Dissociation) Depersonalization and Depersonalization scale scores were markedly elevated (41.70 and 40.98 respectively), followed by moderate elevations in the Identity Confusion (36.01), Trance (25.44), and Memory Problems (23.30) scales. Criterion B (Intrusions from partly dissociated self-states) mean score was modestly elevated (19.13) and declined to 13.67 once items overlapping with the Depersonalization and Identity Confusion scales were excluded. Criterion C (fully dissociated manifestations of other self-states) mean score was minimally elevated (6.57). Of the 168 pathological dissociation items, 55 were clinically elevated in DDD. Closer examination of the Intrusions and Amnesia items that were modestly elevated in DDD revealed that these items did not reflect the presence of alters, but rather represented known depersonalization-related phenomena. We propose a preliminary formula, based on cutoff scores for Criterion A Depersonalization and/or Derealization, Criterion B, and Criterion C (≥20, ≤28, ≤11) for the sensitive diagnosis of DDD (82.6% of participants), which would require future investigation for replication and determination of specificity vis-à-vis the other dissociative disorders.</p>","PeriodicalId":47476,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trauma & Dissociation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Trauma & Dissociation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2022.2119634","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation (MID) was administered to 23 participants diagnosed with DSM-IV-TR Depersonalization Disorder (DDD) by structured interview. The MID has not been previously examined in DDD and does not generate a diagnostic formula for the disorder. Mean MID score for the sample was modestly elevated at 18.54, and was significantly correlated with Dissociative Experiences Scale, Cambridge Depersonalization Scale, and Childhood Trauma Questionnaire scores. Criterion A (General Dissociation) Depersonalization and Depersonalization scale scores were markedly elevated (41.70 and 40.98 respectively), followed by moderate elevations in the Identity Confusion (36.01), Trance (25.44), and Memory Problems (23.30) scales. Criterion B (Intrusions from partly dissociated self-states) mean score was modestly elevated (19.13) and declined to 13.67 once items overlapping with the Depersonalization and Identity Confusion scales were excluded. Criterion C (fully dissociated manifestations of other self-states) mean score was minimally elevated (6.57). Of the 168 pathological dissociation items, 55 were clinically elevated in DDD. Closer examination of the Intrusions and Amnesia items that were modestly elevated in DDD revealed that these items did not reflect the presence of alters, but rather represented known depersonalization-related phenomena. We propose a preliminary formula, based on cutoff scores for Criterion A Depersonalization and/or Derealization, Criterion B, and Criterion C (≥20, ≤28, ≤11) for the sensitive diagnosis of DDD (82.6% of participants), which would require future investigation for replication and determination of specificity vis-à-vis the other dissociative disorders.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人格解体障碍的多维解离量表(MID):一般研究结果,临床重点是记忆和身份障碍。
采用结构化访谈法对23例诊断为DSM-IV-TR人格解体障碍(DDD)的被试进行多维解离量表(MID)测试。MID以前没有在DDD中进行过检查,也没有为该疾病产生诊断公式。样本的平均MID得分适度上升至18.54,并与分离体验量表、剑桥去人格化量表和儿童创伤问卷得分显著相关。标准A(一般解离)人格解体和人格解体量表得分显著升高(分别为41.70分和40.98分),其次是身份混淆(36.01分)、恍惚(25.44分)和记忆问题(23.30分)量表得分中度升高。标准B(来自部分分离自我状态的侵入)的平均得分适度提高(19.13),一旦排除与人格解体和身份混淆量表重叠的项目,平均得分下降到13.67。标准C(其他自我状态完全分离的表现)平均得分略有升高(6.57)。168项病理分离项目中,55项DDD临床升高。对DDD中适度升高的入侵和失忆项目的进一步检查显示,这些项目并没有反映改变的存在,而是代表了已知的去人格化相关现象。我们提出了一个初步的公式,基于标准a人格解体和/或现实解体,标准B和标准C(≥20,≤28,≤11)对DDD(82.6%的参与者)敏感诊断的截止分数,这将需要未来的研究来复制和确定-à-vis其他分离性障碍的特异性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
6.10%
发文量
39
期刊最新文献
Dissociative Experiences Among Transgender Women: A Phenomenological Study. A Virtual Reality Simulation to Examine the Relationship Between Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms and Decision-Making in First Responders. Can Listening to a Verbal Trauma Report Induce Intrusions? - Replication of a Randomized Trial. The Centrality of Humiliation in Complex Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Peritraumatic Dissociation Partially Mediates the Influence of Lifetime Trauma Exposure on Prospective PTSD Symptoms.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1