Dissociative Amnesia in Dissociative Disorders and Borderline Personality Disorder: Self-Rating Assessment in a College Population

Dissociative amnesia (DA) among subjects with a dissociative disorder and/or borderline personality disorder (BPD) recruited from a nonclinical population was examined. The Steinberg Dissociative Amnesia Questionnaire (SDAQ), the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire, and the self-report screening tool of the BPD section of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–IV(SCID-BPD) were administered to 1,301 college students. A total of 80 participants who were diagnosed with BPD according to the clinician-administered SCID-BPD and 111 nonborderline controls were evaluated using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–IV Dissociative Disorders (SCID-D) by a psychiatrist blind to diagnosis and scale scores. Internal consistency analyses and test–retest evaluations suggested that the SDAQ is a reliable instrument for the population studied. Of the participants, 20.6% reported an SDAQ score of 20 or above and impairment by DA. Those who had both dissociative disorder and BPD (n = 78) had the highest SDAQ scores. Both disorders had significant effects on the SCID-D total and amnesia scores in the variance analysis. On SDAQ scores, however, only BPD had this effect. There was a significant interaction between the 2 disorders for the SCID-D total but not for the SDAQ or SCID-D amnesia scores. BPD represented the severity of dissociation and childhood trauma in this study group. However, in contrast to the dissociative disorders, BPD was characterized by better awareness of DA in self-report. The discrepancies between self-report and clinical interview associated with BPD and dissociative disorders are discussed in the context of betrayal theory (J. J. Freyd, 1994) of BPD and perceptual theory (D. B. Beere, 2009) of dissociative disorders.     

Dissociative Identity Disorder Among Adolescents: Prevalence in a University Psychiatric Outpatient Unit

The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of dissociative identity disorder (DID) and other dissociative disorders among adolescent psychiatric outpatients. A total of 116 consecutive outpatients between 11 and 17 years of age who were admitted to the child and adolescent psychiatry clinic of a university hospital for the 1st time were evaluated using the Adolescent Dissociative Experiences Scale, adolescent version of the Child Symptom Inventory-4, Childhood Trauma Questionnaire, and McMaster Family Assessment Device. All patients were invited for an interview with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Dissociative Disorders (SCID-D) administered by 2 senior psychiatrists in a blind fashion. There was excellent interrater reliability between the 2 clinicians on SCID-D diagnoses and scores. Among 73 participants, 33 (45.2%) had a dissociative disorder: 12 (16.4%) had DID, and 21 (28.8%) had dissociative disorder not otherwise specified. There was no difference in gender distribution, childhood trauma, or family dysfunction scores between the dissociative and nondissociative groups. Childhood emotional abuse and family dysfunction correlated with self-reported dissociation. Of the dissociative adolescents, 93.9% had an additional psychiatric disorder. Among them, only separation anxiety disorder was significantly more prevalent than in controls. Although originally designed for adults, the SCID-D is promising for diagnosing dissociative disorders in adolescents, its modest congruence with self-rated dissociation and lack of relationship between diagnosis and childhood trauma and family dysfunction suggest that the prevalence rates obtained with this instrument originally designed for adults must be replicated. The introduction of diagnostic criteria for adolescent DID in revised versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, would refine the assessment of dissociative disorders in this age group.     

Depersonalization and derealization in self-report and clinical interview: The spectrum of borderline personality disorder,dissociative disorders,and healthy controls

Depersonalization (DEP) and derealization (DER) were examined among college students with and without borderline personality disorder (BPD) and/or dissociative disorders (DDs) by self-report and clinician assessment. The Steinberg Depersonalization Questionnaire (SDEPQ), the Steinberg Derealization Questionnaire (SDERQ), the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire, and the screening tool of the BPD section of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–IV (SCID-BPD) were administered to 1,301 students. Those with BPD (n = 80) according to the SCID-BPD and 111 non-BPD controls were evaluated using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–IV Dissociative Disorders by a psychiatrist blind to the diagnosis. Of the participants, 19.7% reported SDEPQ (17.8%) and/or SDERQ (11.0%) scores above cutoff levels and impairment from these experiences. Principal component analysis of 26 items of both scales yielded 4 factors: cognitive-emotional self-detachment, perceptual detachment, bodily self-detachment, and detachment from reality. Participants with concurrent DD and BPD had the highest scores for DEP and DER in the clinical interview and self-report. The total number of BPD criteria was associated with the severity of childhood trauma and dissociation. Both BPD and DD were associated with clinician-assessed and self-reported DER, self-reported DEP, and the cognitive-emotional self-detachment factor. Unlike BPD, DD was associated with clinician-assessed DEP, and BPD was related to the self-reported detachment from reality factor. Although the latter was correlated with the total childhood trauma score, possibly because of dissociative amnesia, clinician-assessed DER was not. Being the closest factor to BPD, the factor of detachment from reality warrants further study.     

Awareness of identity alteration and diagnostic preference between borderline personality disorder and dissociative disorders

Aim: This study inquires into identity alteration among college students and its relationship to borderline personality disorder (BPD) and/or dissociative disorders (DDs). Methods: Steinberg Identity Alteration Questionnaire (SIAQ), Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ), and self-report screening tool of the BPD section of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID-BPD) were administered to 1301 college students. Participants who fit the diagnostic criteria of BPD (n = 80) according to the clinician-administered SCID-BPD and 111 non-BPD controls were evaluated using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV DDs (SCID-D) by two psychiatrists blind to the group membership and scale scores. Results: Test-retest evaluations and internal consistency analyses suggested that SIAQ was a reliable instrument. Of the participants, 11.3% reported a SIAQ score 25 or above alongside some impairment. SIAQ scores differentiated participants who fit the diagnostic criteria for a DD from those who did not. While self-report identity alteration was correlated with all childhood trauma types, clinician-assessed identity alteration was correlated with childhood sexual abuse only. Those who fit criteria for both disorders had the highest identity alteration scores in self-report and clinician-assessment. Although both syndromes had significant effect on self-report identity alteration total scores, in contrast to DD, BPD did not have an effect on the clinician-administered evaluation. Conclusion: An impression of personality disorder rather than a DD may seem more likely when identity alteration remains subtle in clinical assessment, notwithstanding its presence in self-report. Lack of recognition of identity alteration may lead to overdiagnosis of BPD among individuals who have a DD.     

Depressive disorders in primary care: recurrent, chronic, and co-morbid

BACKGROUND: Preceding longitudinal course and current somatic and psychiatric co-morbidity of depression have been little investigated in primary care. METHOD: Consecutive patients (n = 1111) in primary care in the city of Vantaa, Finland, were screened for depression with the PRIME-MD, and positive cases interviewed by telephone. Cases with current depressive symptoms were diagnosed face-to-face with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I/P). A cohort of 137 patients with unipolar depressive disorders, comprising all patients with at least two depressive symptoms and clinically significant distress or disability, was recruited. The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Disorders (SCID-II), medical records, rating scales, and a retrospective life-chart were used to obtain comprehensive cross-sectional and longitudinal information. RESULTS: Current major depressive disorder (MDD) was the most prevalent depressive disorder (66%); it was usually mild to moderate but recurrent. A quarter of cases (23%) had MDD in partial remission or prodromal phase, and only 10% had true minor depression. Axis I co-morbidity was present in 59%, Axis II in 52%, and chronic Axis III disorders in 47%; only 12% had no co-morbidity. One third of patients presented with a psychological complaint, predicted by higher depression severity and younger age. CONCLUSION: From a lifetime perspective, the majority of primary-care patients with depressive disorders suffer from recurrent MDD, although they are currently often in prodromal or residual phase. Psychiatric and somatic co-morbidity are highly prevalent. Treatment of depression in primary care should not rely on an assumption of short-lived, uncomplicated mild disorders.     

强迫症与人格障碍的共病研究

目的：评估强迫症患者中人格障碍的发生率，探讨强迫症患者与人格障碍的共病情况。方法：使用SCID—Ⅱ对47例强迫症患者和47例正常对照进行人格障碍的评估。结果：61．7％的强迫症患者至少符合一种人格障碍的诊断标准，显著高于对照组，且34％同时患有两种以上的人格障碍；强迫症患者中员常见的人格障碍为强迫型、回避型、消极型以及偏执型；患者的性别及是否有精神疾病家族史对人格障碍的共病率无显著影响。结论：强迫症与人格障碍常有共病现象，强迫型人格障碍同强迫症具有特殊关系，今后在强迫症的生物学研究中应考虑人格特质与人格障碍的影响。     

Comparing the symptoms and mechanisms of “dissociation” in dissociative identity disorder and borderline personality disorder

A total of 75 patients were diagnosed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–IV Dissociative Disorders–Revised as having dissociative identity disorder (DID), and 100 patients were diagnosed with the Structured Interview for DSM–IV Personality as having borderline personality disorder (BPD). Both groups were administered the Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation (MID). DID patients had significantly higher MID scores than BPD patients, different distributions of MID scores, and different MID subscale profiles in 3 ranges of MID scores (0–15, 15–30, 30–45). The core MID symptoms—exhibited at all ranges of MID scores—for DID patients (the presence of alters, identity confusion, and memory problems) and BPD patients (flashbacks, identity confusion, and memory problems) were ostensibly similar but were considered to be mostly produced by different underlying processes. Multiple regression analyses showed that the core MID symptoms of DID patients had different predictors than did the core MID symptoms of BPD patients. Alter identities seemed to generate most—but not all—dissociative phenomena in DID patients, whereas only the 24% highest scoring BPD patients (MID ≥45) seemed to manifest alter-driven dissociative experiences. Most BPD dissociative experiences appeared to be due to 5 other mechanisms: (a) BPD-specific, stress-driven, rapid shifts of self-state; (b and c) nondefensive disruptions of the framework of perceptual organization with or without an accompanying BPD-specific, dissociation-like disintegration of affective/neurocognitive functioning; (d) a defensive distancing or detachment from distress (i.e., simple depersonalization); and (e) Allen, Console, and Lewis’s (1999) severe absorptive detachment.     

Differentiating Dissociative Disorders from Other Diagnostic Groups Through Somatoform Dissociation in Turkey

Abstract

This study aimed to assess the reliability, validity, and psychometric characteristics of the Turkish version of the Somatoform Dissociation Questionnaire (SDQ-20). In this context, it investigated whether somatoform dissociation differentiates dissociative disorders from other diagnostic groups and non-clinical individuals. The Turkish Version of the SDQ-20 was administered to 50 patients with a dissociative disorder, 94 patients with psychiatric disorders other than dissociative disorder, and 175 non-clinical participants. To confirm the clinical diagnosis, all patients in the dissociative disorder group had been evaluated using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Dissociative Disorders. The internal consistency and the test-retest correlation of the SDQ-20 were excellent. The scale had strong correlations with the DES and the DIS-Q. There was a statistically significant difference between dissociative patients and other diagnostic groups on the SDQ-20 total score. The discriminative power of the SDQ-20 was as robust as that of the DES. There was no significant difference between the mean SDQ-20 total scores of Turkish and Dutch patients, but Turkish dissociative patients reported pseudoseizures more frequently than Dutch patients. The specificity of the short version of the scale (SDQ-5) was weak among Turkish patients. Dissociative disorders can be differentiated from other diagnostic groups through somatoform dissociation. The good psychometric characteristics of the SDQ-20 among Turkish participants support its cross-cultural validity.     

Dissociation and psychosis in dissociative identity disorder and schizophrenia

Dissociative symptoms, first-rank symptoms of schizophrenia, and delusions were assessed in 40 schizophrenia patients and 40 dissociative identity disorder (DID) patients with the Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation (MID). Schizophrenia patients were diagnosed with the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-IV Axis I Disorders; DID patients were diagnosed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Dissociative Disorders-Revised. DID patients obtained significantly (a) higher dissociation scores; (b) higher passive-influence scores (first-rank symptoms); and (c) higher scores on scales that measure child voices, angry voices, persecutory voices, voices arguing, and voices commenting. Schizophrenia patients obtained significantly higher delusion scores than did DID patients. What is odd is that the dissociation scores of schizophrenia patients were unrelated to their reports of childhood maltreatment. Multiple regression analyses indicated that 81% of the variance in DID patients' dissociation scores was predicted by the MID's Ego-Alien Experiences Scale, whereas 92% of the variance in schizophrenia patients' dissociation scores was predicted by the MID's Voices Scale. We propose that schizophrenia patients' responses to the MID do not index the same pathology as do the responses of DID patients. We argue that neither phenomenological definitions of dissociation nor the current generation of dissociation instruments (which are uniformly phenomenological in nature) can distinguish between the dissociative phenomena of DID and what we suspect are just the dissociation-like phenomena of schizophrenia.     

Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–IV Dissociative Disorders (SCID-D): A Preliminary Study

A total of 34 consecutive patients with dissociative identity disorder or dissociative disorder not otherwise specified were evaluated using the Turkish version of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–IV Dissociative Disorders (SCID-D). They were compared with a matched control group composed of 34 patients who had a nondissociative psychiatric disorder. Interrater reliability was evaluated by 3 clinicians who assessed videotaped interviews conducted with 5 dissociative and 5 nondissociative patients. All subjects who were previously diagnosed by clinicians as having a dissociative disorder were identified as positive, and all subjects who were previously diagnosed as not having a dissociative disorder were identified as negative. The scores of the main symptom clusters and the total score of the SCID-D differentiated dissociative patients from the nondissociative group. There were strong correlations between the SCID-D and the Dissociative Experiences Scale total and subscale scores. These results are promising for the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the SCID-D. However, as the present study was conducted on a predominantly female sample with very severe dissociation, these findings should not be generalized to male patients, to dissociative disorders other than dissociative identity disorder, or to broader clinical or nonclinical populations.     

Adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and early maladaptive schemas

The purpose of the current study is to present the early maladaptive schemas in adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The study sample comprised 107 participants, including 55 adult ADHD and 52 healthy volunteers. The age of the participants ranged between 18 and 32 years. Structured Clinical Interview Form for DSM-IV Axis I (SCID-I) and Structured Clinical Interview Form for DSM-III-R Disorders (SCID-II) were applied to all participants and Diagnostic Interview for ADHD (DIVA) for ADHD group based on DSM-5 criteria. The participants filled the Young Schema Questionnaire (YSQ-S3), Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS), Wender Utah RatingScale-25 (WURS), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and The Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI). All maladaptive schemas were found to be statistically significantly higher in the ADHD group. As compatible with ADHD core symptoms, “Failure,” “Emotional Inhibition,” “Insufficient Self-Control” and “Social Isolation” were the most seen maladaptive schemas in the ADHD group. “Approval Seeking,” “Entitlement/Grandiosity” and “Punitiveness” were found the weakest schemas in the ADHD group. This study besides supporting the theory of early maladaptive schemas suggests that identifying and modifying maladaptive schemas interventions based on specific schemas can be an important and useful method for psychotherapy in treatment of ADHD.     

Co-Occurrence of Dissociative Identity Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder

The literature indicates that, among individuals with borderline personality disorder, pathological dissociation correlates with a wide range of impairments and difficulties in psychological function. It also predicts a poorer response to dialectical behavior therapy for borderline personality disorder. We hypothesized that (a) dissociative identity disorder commonly co-occurs with borderline personality disorder and vice versa, and (b) individuals who meet criteria for both disorders have more comorbidity and trauma than individuals who meet criteria for only 1 disorder. We interviewed a sample of inpatients in a hospital trauma program using 3 measures of dissociation. The most symptomatic group was those participants who met criteria for both borderline personality disorder and dissociative identity disorder on the Dissociative Disorders Interview Schedule, followed by those who met criteria for dissociative identity disorder only, then those with borderline personality disorder only, and finally those with neither disorder. Greater attention should be paid to the relationship between borderline personality disorder and dissociative identity disorder.     

四种人格障碍检测工具效度比较研究：—人格障碍检测工具系列研究Ⅱ

目的：对四来自西方的人格障碍检测工具的效度进行比较研究,母\方法：本研究将四种人格障碍检测工具IPDE（国际人格障碍检查）、SCIⅡ（DSM-Ⅲ-R人格障碍临床定式检测）、SCI－ⅡPQ（DSM-Ⅲ-R人格障碍筛查问卷）,PDI－Ⅳ（DSM-Ⅳ人格障碍检测）在中国大陆人群中抽样测试并进行效度检验。结果：在四个检测工具中强迫型、回避型、依赖型、表演型、边缘型、反社会型、分裂样型和偏执型等8个人格障碍型别具有较好的效度;IPDE较其他检测工具的效度更为完善,IPED的不足之处;项目8、结构稳定性差,项目2、3、8、24、25、29、52的区分度较差。结论：迫型、回避型、依赖型,表演型、边缘型、反社会型、分裂样型和偏执型等8个人格障碍型别有较好的独特性和鉴别诊断效能;IPED较其他检测工具有更好的可操作性。     

Experiences of Possession and Paranormal Phenomena Among Women in the General Population: Are They Related to Traumatic Stress and Dissociation?

This study sought to determine the prevalence of experiences of possession and paranormal phenomena (PNP) in the general population and their possible relations to each other and to traumatic stress and dissociation. The study was conducted on a representative female sample recruited from a town in central eastern Turkey. The Dissociative Disorders Interview Schedule, the posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and borderline personality disorder sections of the Structured Clinical Interviews for DSM–IV Axis-I and Personality Disorders, and the Childhood Abuse and Neglect Questionnaire were administered to 628 women. Of these, 127 (20.2%) women reported at least 1 type of PNP and 13 (2.1%) women reported possession. Women with a dissociative disorder reported all types of possession and PNP (except telepathy) more frequently than those without. Whereas women with a trauma history in childhood and adulthood or PTSD reported possession more frequently than those without, PNP were associated with childhood trauma only. Factor analysis yielded 4 dimensions: possession by and/or contact with nonhuman entities, extrasensory communications, possession by a human entity, and precognition. These factors correlated with number of secondary features of dissociative identity disorder and Schneiderian symptoms. Latent class analysis identified 3 groups. The most traumatized group, with predominantly dissociative and trauma-related disorders, had the highest scores on all factors. Notwithstanding their presence in healthy individuals, possession and PNP were associated with trauma and dissociation in a subgroup of affected participants. Both types of experience seem to be normal human capacities of experiencing that may be involved in response to traumatic stress. Given the small numbers, this study should be considered preliminary.     

四种人格障碍检测工具信度比较研究：—人格障碍检测工具系列研究Ⅰ

目的：将来自西方的四种人格障碍检测工具IPDE、SCID－Ⅱ、SCID-ⅡPQ和PDI－Ⅳ中文版本（简称IPDESCID－Ⅱ、SCID-ⅡPQ和PDI－Ⅳ）在中国文化背景下进行检测和信度比较研究,方法：以上述四个人格障碍检测工具分别检测153名被试（缓解重型精神病患者42名,病情稳定的神经症患者41名,人格障碍碍者29名,正常对照被试41名）并对其信度进行了系统检检和比较,结果：信度检验显示,强迫型、回避型（IPDE中为焦眠／回避型）、依赖型,表演型、边缘型（IPDE中为情绪不稳定型）、反社会型（IPDE中为社交紊乱型）、分裂祥型和偏执型等8个人格障碍分量表的重测信度、评定者信度1分半信度和同质性信度较好;在四个人格障碍检测工具中,IPDE的信度较其它人格障碍工具更好。结论：强迫型、回避型（IPDE中为焦虑／回避型）依赖型、表演型、边缘型（IPDE中为情绪不稳定型）、反社会型（IPDE中为社交紊乱型）、分裂祥型和偏执型等8个人格障碍型另具有较的稳定性,客观性、内部同源性。IPDE有较为完善的信度。     

Axes I and II comorbidity and treatment experiences in eating disorder subjects

BACKGROUND: The present study determined the psychiatric comorbidity of Axes I and II in a sample of subjects with eating disorders (EDs). The objective was to investigate associations between comorbidity and current and past treatment. METHODS: In a sample of 248 women (77 anorexia nervosa, 137 bulimia nervosa, 34 eating disorders not otherwise specified), psychiatric comorbidity of Axes I and II was determined with the Structured Clinical Interview of DSM-IV. Current and past treatment since ED onset were also assessed. RESULTS: High levels of psychiatric comorbidity were found in the total sample (71% Axis I and 68% Axis II). Only 17% of cases had no psychiatric comorbidity. Anxiety (52%) and affective disorders (50%) were the most common Axis I diagnoses. Personality disorders of Clusters C (52%) and B (23%) were most common for Axis II. Twenty-one percent of participants who were not in treatment at the time had a history of inpatient treatment, and an additional 59% had a history of outpatient treatment. Thirty-eight percent of participants currently in outpatient treatment had a history of inpatient treatment. Participants with multiple comorbidity (Axes I and II) had the highest proportion of cases who had been treated by health professionals. Higher levels of comorbidity were associated with experiences in more intense treatment settings (ranging from no treatment to inpatient treatment). CONCLUSIONS: ED subjects with greater comorbidity require more treatment encounters and more intense treatment settings. The association between comorbidity and treatment experiences may represent a bias in the assessment of comorbidity when samples with heterogeneous treatment history are recruited.     

Attachment mental states and inferred pathways of development in borderline personality disorder: a study using the Adult Attachment Interview

We report the outcome of an investigation on how specific attachment states of mind and corresponding risk factors related to different DSM Axis I comorbidities in subjects with BPD. Mental representations of attachment in four BPD sub-groups (BPD and Anxiety/Mood Disorders, BPD and Substance Use and Abuse Disorders, BPD and Alcohol Use and Abuse Disorders, and BPD and Eating Disorders) were assessed in 140 BPD subjects using the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI). In addition to the global attachment picture in which Insecure organized (Dismissing 51% and Enmeshed 35%) and Insecure disorganized categories (40%) were overrepresented, significant differences in attachment category were found between the four BPD sub-groups. Axis I comorbidities corresponded with attachment features on the internalizing/externalizing functioning dimension of the disorder. Furthermore, specific constellations of inferred developmental antecedents and attachment states of mind corresponded differentially with the BPD sub-groups. Implications for developmental research and clinical nosology are discussed.     

Do characteristics of patients with major depressive disorder differ between primary and psychiatric care?

BACKGROUND: Despite the need for rational allocation of resources and cooperation between different treatment settings, clinical differences in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) between primary and psychiatric care remain obscure. We investigated these differences in representative patient populations from primary care versus secondary level psychiatric care in the city of Vantaa, Finland. METHOD: We compared MDD patients from primary care in the Vantaa Primary Care Depression Study (PC-VDS) (n=79) with psychiatric out-patients (n=223) and in-patients (n=46) in the Vantaa Depression Study (VDS). DSM-IV diagnoses were assigned by the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I disorders (SCID-I in PC-VDS) or Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN in VDS), and SCID-II interviews. Comparable information was collected on depression severity, Axis I and II co-morbidity, suicidal behaviour, preceding clinical course, and attitudes towards and pathways to treatment. RESULTS: Prevalence of psychotic subtype and severity of depression were highest among in-patients, but otherwise few clinical differences between psychiatric and primary care patients were detected. Suicide attempts, alcohol dependence, and cluster A personality disorder were associated with treatment in psychiatric care, whereas cluster B personality disorder was associated with primary care treatment. Patients' choice of the initial point of contact for current depressive symptoms seemed to be independent of prior clinical history or attitude towards treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Severe, suicidal and psychotic depression cluster in psychiatric in-patient settings, as expected. However, MDD patients in primary care or psychiatric out-patient settings may not differ markedly in their clinical characteristics. This apparent blurring of boundaries between treatment settings calls for enhanced cooperation between settings, and clearer and more structured division of labour.     

Dissociation and Schizophrenia

ABSTRACT

The authors administered the Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES), the Dissociative Disorders Interview Schedule (DDIS), the Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms, and the Scale for Assessment of Negative Symptoms to 60 participants with schizophrenia. Participants were divided into two groups: those with scores below 10 on the DES and no dissociative disorder on the DDIS; and those with scores above 25 on the DES and/or a dissociative disorder on the DDIS. The dissociative participants had more severe trauma histories, more comorbidity and higher scores for both positive and negative symptoms. The authors interpret their findings as evidence in support of a trauma-dissociation subgroup within schizophrenia.