User:Amousey/sandbox

for diagnosing and differentiating DD from other psychiatric disorders and feigned presentations of DD. Clinicians, researchers, and forensic experts can use the SCID-D interviews with confidence to make differential diagnoses of DDs. Future research using the SCID-D interviews is discussed.". In full text she states that the SCID-D is better at discriminating the 2 DID factors (amnesia and identity alteration) than for the other dissociative disorders, but it's a good clinical diagnostic interview for all dissociative disorders.

It can be accurately discriminated from other disorders, especially when structured diagnostic interviews assess identity alterations and amnesia. DID is aetiologically associated with a complex combination of developmental and cultural factors, including severe childhood relational trauma. The prevalence of DID appears highest in emergency psychiatric settings and affects approximately 1% of the general population. Psychobiological studies are beginning to identify clear correlates of DID associated with diverse brain areas and cognitive functions. They are also providing an understanding of the potential metacognitive origins of amnesia. Phase-oriented empirically-guided treatments are emerging for DID."

instrument following the general SCID framework (First, Spitzer, Gibbon, & Williams, 1998) that was developed to evaluate the presence and severity of the five dissociative disorders in DSM-III-R, and subsequently, DSM-IV (Steinberg, 1995). SCID-D bases its assessment on the evaluation of five dimensions of dissociation which are considered distinct but related features of dissociative pathology: depersonalization, derealization, amnesia, identity alteration, and identity confusion. In studies in the US and the Netherlands among psychiatric inpatients and outpatients, inter-rater reliability, test–retest reliability, and discriminant validity from other psychiatric disorders have been good to excellent (Boon & Draijer, 1991; Bowman & Markand, 1996; Friedl & Draijer, 2000; Steinberg, Cicchetti, Buchanan, Rakfeldt, & Rounsaville, 1994). Research in Germany (Gast, Rodewald, Nickel, & Emrich, 2001) and Turkey (Sar et al., 2003) has also shown good psychometric properties in psychiatric samples. The Dissociative Disorder Interview Schedule (DDIS) is a more structured interview also designed to diagnose DSM-based dissociative pathology (Ross et al. 1989). Unlike the semistructured SCID-D, which permits some flexibility in wording and further elucidation of items, the DDIS is administered exactly as written, in an attempt at greater standardization. This 132-item interview assesses the core symptoms of the five DSM-IV dissociative disorders as well as Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), somatization disorder, and major depressive disorder. It also obtains descriptions of childhood sexual and physical abuse. In studies conducted in North America, the DDIS has a reliability of 0.68 and a kappa of 0.96 for clinician agreement on the diagnosis of DID, with a false positive rate of 1% in nondissociative clinical samples (Ross, 1997). The major DDIS symptom clusters (secondary features of DID, Schneiderian symptoms, BPD criteria, and extrasensory experiences) correlate well with overall DES score (Spearman correlations = 0.67–0.78), indicating good convergent validity. The DDIS has been used in several international investigations of dissociative disorders, such as in Turkey with psychiatric inpatients (Tutkun et al., 1998) and with a general population sample (Akyüz et al., 1999; Sar et al., in press) and in a psychiatric inpatient sample in Switzerland (Modestin, Ebner, Junghan, & Erni, 1996). In Turkish studies, the DDIS demonstrates high sensitivity and specificity for the dissociative disorders when compared with individuals with epilepsy, schizophrenia, and panic disorder (Sar, Yargic, & Tutkun, 1996; Yargic, Sar, Tutkun, & Alyanak, 1998)...

:Self-Report Instruments
The most widely used self-report measure of dissociation is the DES (Bernstein & Putnam, 1986), a 28-item instrument that assesses a variety of lifetime (or “trait”) dissociative experiences on scale of 0–100, anchored at both ends as “never” and “always.”"

(SCID-D-R).21 The SCID-D-R is a semistructured interview that is considered the gold standard for diagnosing dissociative disorders because it has good-to-excellent reliability and good discriminant validity. A drawback of the SCID-D-R is that it can take as long as three hours to administer to highly dissociative patients and requires specialized training."

schizophrenia. Three measures of dissociation (SCID-D, DBS, SDQ-5) two personality measures (MMPI-2, Millon-III) and a brief measure of hypnotic susceptibility (Spiegel & Spiegel's Eye-Roll Sign) were assessed for their ability to differentiate these diagnostic groups. Results indicate that the SCID-D was clearly the most efficacious instrument in discriminating DID from schizophrenia and from feigned dissociation. The DES-Taxon and the SDQ-5 were adequate in screening pathological dissociation from schizophrenia but were less discriminative of feigned dissociation. The commonly used personality inventories were unable to detect feigned dissociation and the DID group tended to have higher elevations on scales measuring psychotic symptoms than did the schizophrenic group. The Eye-Roll Sign discriminated feigned dissociation from those with dissociative disorders. Structured interviews such as the SCID-D, although resource consuming, are essential in comprehensive assessment of dissociative disorders"

- and "These results support the SCID-D as being the “gold standard” in assessing dissociative dis- orders and indicate that a structured interview is essential when under- taking any comprehensive assessment of pathological dissociation"

and severity of amnesia, depersonallzation, dereallzadon, identity confusion, and identity alteration symptoms. General, open-ended screening questions are followed by more detailed quesdons. Diagnostic reliability was assessed for presence/absence of a dissociative disorder, type of dissociative disorder, and severity of specific dissociative symptoms. Inter-rater reliability was in the good to excellent range. Agreement (Kappa) on presence or absence of a dissociative disorder was 0.92; for the diagnosis of DID the kappa was 0.90 (Steinberg et al., 1990) . The SCID-D has been updated for the DSM-IV criteria (Steinberg, 1993), and this version is sometimes referred to as SCID-D-R. Follow-up invesdgations (see Stelnberg, 1995) have reported good to excellent inter-rater and test-retest reliability and very good discriminant validity of the SCID-D for the assessment of dissociative symptom severity and for the dissociative disorders in a variety of populations. These results have been replicated by the Dutch researchers Boon and Draijer (1991), who obtained 97.7% agreement on presence/absence of a dissociative disorder, and 100% agreement of diagnoses of DID. Other investigations (Boon &: Draijer, 1993b; Steinberg, Cicchetti, Buchanan, Rakfeldt, & Rounsaville, 1994) have reported that the SCID-D is effective in distinguishing between patients with clinically diagnosed dissociative disorders and other psychiatric disorders, as well as accurately distinguishing between patients with seizures and pseudoseizures (Bowman & Markand, 1996).
Dissociative disorder interview schedule (DDIS).
The DDIS (Ross, Norton, & Fraser, 1989, Ross, Norton, & Wozney, 1989) is a structured symptom checklist designed to identify four dissociative disorders (psychogenic amnesia, psychogenic fugue, depersonalization disorder, and DID), and three disorders with related symptomatology (borderline personality disorder [BPD], somatizadon disorder, and major depressive disorder). An update of the DDIS for the DSM-IV can be obtained through the web site for the Colin A. Ross Institute http://rossinst.com).
The DDIS appears to generate fairly reliable and valid data. The initial study (Ross et al., 1989) reported acceptable inter-rater reliability, with an overall Kappa coefficient of 0.68; for the diagnosis of DID specifically, kappa was 0.78, with sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 100%. In the only study of which we are aware that examined the concurrent validity of the DDIS and SCID-D, Ross, Duffy, and EIlason (1999) reported a kappa of .74 for diagnoses from the two instruments with masked raters.
Overall, these data support the reliability of both instruments. The reliability data reported for the SCID-D and the DDIS compare favorably with instruments for other psychiatric diagnoses. For example, in a study of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R (SCID), Williams et al. (1992) reported an overall weighted inter-rater agreement for 21 separate diagnoses of 0.61, with a range of 0.40 to 0.86. Thus, the reliability estimates reported by Steinberg et al. (1990) for the SCID-D were actually higher than for any mental disorder studied by Williams and colleagues Although these reliability estimates are not directly comparable (the data reported by Williams et al., 1992, were estimates of both interrater and test-retest reliability), they clearly suggest that the SCID-D can be used to reliably diagnose dissociative disorders and, specifically, DID. "