Cited by 280Child Abuse and TraumaPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

Dissociation in victims of childhood abuse or neglect: a meta-analytic review

Vonderlin, Ruben, Kleindienst, Nikolaus, Alpers, Georg W., Bohus, Martin, Lyssenko, Lisa, Schmahl, Christian·2018·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

Childhood abuse and neglect are associated with dissociative symptoms in adulthood. However, empirical studies show heterogeneous results depending on the type of childhood abuse or neglect and other maltreatment characteristics. In this meta-analysis, we systematically investigated the relationship between childhood interpersonal maltreatment and dissociation in 65 studies with 7352 abused or neglected individuals using the Dissociative Experience Scale (DES). We extracted DES-scores for abused and non-abused populations as well as information about type of abuse/neglect, age of onset, duration of abuse, and relationship to the perpetrator. Random-effects models were used for data synthesis, and meta-regression was used to predict DES-scores in abused populations from maltreatment characteristics. The results revealed higher dissociation in victims of childhood abuse and neglect compared with non-abused or neglected subsamples sharing relevant population features (MAbuse = 23.5, MNeglect = 18.8, MControl = 13.8) with highest scores for sexual and physical abuse. An earlier age of onset, a longer duration of abuse, and parental abuse significantly predicted higher dissociation scores. This meta-analysis underlines the importance of childhood abuse/neglect in the etiology of dissociation. The identified moderators may inform risk assessment and early intervention to prevent the development of dissociative symptoms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291718000740

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vonderlin, R., Kleindienst, N., Alpers, G. W., Bohus, M., Lyssenko, L., & Schmahl, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Mannheim (DE)
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • University of Antwerp (BE)
  • Western University (CA)
Corresponding author
Lyssenko, Lisa
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2018-04-10
Volume
48
Issue
15
Pages
2467-2476
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2797682117
Cited by
280
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 4
FWCI
3.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • MADOC (University of Mannheim) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Keywords
childhood abuse, child neglect, dissociation, Dissociative Experiences Scale, sexual abuse, physical abuse, age of onset, abuse duration, parental abuse, perpetrator relationship, risk assessment, early intervention
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Child, Child Abuse, Child, Preschool, Dissociative Disorders, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Adult Survivors of Child Abuse, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review