Cited by 149Psychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsPsychological Testing and AssessmentPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

Psychometric properties of the dissociative experiences scale

DUBESTER, KATHRYN A., BRAUN, BENNETT G.·1995·The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease

Abstract

The test-retest reliability of the Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES; Bernstein EM, Putnam FW [1986] Development, reliability, and validity of a dissociation scale. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 174:727-735) in a clinical sample was found to be .93 for the total DES score and .95, .89, and .82 for the three subscale scores of amnesia, depersonalization-derealization, and absorption (dissociative identity disorder [DID], DSM-IV), respectively. Test-retest reliabilities within diagnostic groups of multiple personality disorder, dissociative disorder not otherwise specified, and a general other category of psychiatric diagnoses were obtained for total and subscale scores on the DES. These ranged from .78 to .96. Tests of mean scores across the two test sessions showed the total and subscale scores to be temporally stable. The DES was also found to be highly internally consistent: Cronbach's alphas of .96 and .97 were observed for the total DES scores taken at times 1 and 2, respectively. Construct validity of the DES was demonstrated by differentiation among the subscale scores in a repeated-measures analysis of variance (F[2,154] = 32.03, p < or = .001). Normality and general distribution issues were also addressed and provided a rationale for using the DES with parametric statistics. Reasons why the DES (as it was originally designed) is not appropriate as a dependent measure in outcome research are discussed, along with needed future research. Implications of the findings for the clinical usefulness of the DES as a diagnostic instrument are noted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00005053-199504000-00008

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
DUBESTER, K. A., & BRAUN, B. G.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Venue
The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease
Published
1995-04
Volume
183
Issue
4
Pages
231-235
ISSN
0022-3018 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1972119664
Cited by
149
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
FWCI
2.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Keywords
Dissociative Experiences Scale, dissociation, test-retest reliability, internal consistency, construct validity, amnesia, depersonalization/derealization, absorption, dissociative identity disorder, dissociative disorder not otherwise specified, outcome measures, diagnostic tools
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Dissociative Disorders, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results

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