Discriminating Dissociative Identity Disorder from Schizophrenia and Feigned Dissociation on Psychological Tests and Structured Interview

SCL–90 symptom patterns: Indicators of dissociative disorders

“…The SCID-D-R is a widely used diagnostic instrument with good-excellent interrater and test-retest reliability (interrater reliability kappa = .88 for the presence of a dissociative disorder; Steinberg, 2000) and very good discriminant validity for the assessment of dissociative symptom severity and dissociative disorders in a variety of populations (Boon & Draijer, 1999;Gast et al, 2001;Goff et al, 1992;Steinberg, 2000;Steinberg et al, 1990Steinberg et al, , 1994. The SCID-D can be used with adolescents (Carrion & Steiner, 2000;Steinberg & Steinberg, 1995) and adults, and can assist in distinguishing valid versus simulated dissociation (Steinberg, Hall, Larean, & Cicchetti, 2001;Welburn et al, 2003).…”

The Forensic Evaluation of Dissociation and Persons Diagnosed with Dissociative Identity Disorder: Searching for Convergence

“…Given that it is well-established that patients who have DID score higher in hypnotic capacity than the general population, it is not surprising that assessments of hypnotic capacity are shown to aid in the discrimination between patients who have DID, schizophrenics, and those who feign DID, and that efficient use of the eye-roll sign can be of significant aid to forensic evaluators [48,80].…”

“…Suggestibility is an important dimension in the forensic contex [80][81][82]. Some investigators offer the possibility that retractorsdpatients who remember being abused in childhood and later retract those assertionsdare influenced by suggestive elements, first accusing a parent and then suing a therapist (gaining approval and sympathy for victim status at both stages) [82].…”

“…Because the Gudjonsson measure has been in use since the mid 1980s, evaluators are cautioned to assess for the likelihood that evaluees are familiar with the measure. Because concerns regarding suggestibility are reported commonly in clinical literature (and may be at the heart of a given case, if the dissociative client is pursuing a case involving misuse of influence), however, the related concepts of social desirability [85], conscious and unconscious deception [79,80,85], fantasy proneness [86,87], and psychopathy [88,89] should be explored.…”

“…In the forensic context, the possibility of malingering and deception must be addressed [79,80,[90][91][92][93][94][95][96]. In addition to the types of evaluations of malingering and deception that are available for psychiatric and psychologic disorders in general [96], there are several categories of assessments that can assist forensic evaluators with these questions as they apply to evaluees claiming DID.…”