Am J Psychiatry 1995; 152:1343-1348
Copyright © 1995 by American Psychiatric Association
Multiple personality disorder among female inpatients in a state hospital
TT Latz, SI Kramer and DL Hughes
Bowman Gray School of Medicine of Wake Forest University, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157-1087, USA.
OBJECTIVE: Professional skepticism and concerns regarding diagnostic
reliability hinder research in dissociative disorders and multiple
personality disorder. The reported frequency of multiple personality
disorder in different psychiatric settings ranges from 2.4% to 35%. The
authors conducted a replication study of multiple personality disorder
ascertainment in women admitted to a state hospital over a 5.5-month
period. METHOD: Responses to the Dissociative Experiences Scale and to the
Dissociative Disorders Interview Schedule were obtained, along with data on
length of stay, county of admission referral, admission commitment status,
and discharge diagnoses, for 176 female inpatients in a state hospital. Of
421 women representing 483 consecutive admissions, 121 were discharged
before they could be assessed for study, 64 were excluded, 60 declined to
participate, 176 enrolled in the study, and 175 completed the research
procedures. RESULTS: Twenty- one women (12%) met criteria for multiple
personality disorder based on the Dissociative Disorders Interview
Schedule; these women were significantly younger than the women without
multiple personality disorder. Scores on the Dissociative Experiences Scale
of the women with multiple personality disorder (mean = 59.5, SD = 19.6)
were significantly higher than the scores of women without multiple
personality disorder (mean = 22.5, SD = 20.1), but considerable overlap
occurred. There was no significant difference between groups in length of
stay or admission status. CONCLUSIONS: The authors conclude that 1) the
wide variability in multiple personality disorder detection is partially
due to site-specific ascertainment biases and 2) despite its apparent
usefulness for screening purposes, the Dissociative Experiences Scale
requires more comprehensive evaluation before it can be applied broadly.
