Dissociative Identity Disorder diagnostic guide - ACC

1 For ACC ISSC suppliers, providers and assessorsDissociative Identity Disorder diagnostic guideThis summary aims to assist you to diagnose adult Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID; see Appendix 1 for definition) in your mental health assessment of ACC clients. The summary sets out the difficulties in DID diagnosis, and outlines best practice diagnostic summary is adapted from the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD) Guidelines for Treating Dissociative Identity Disorder in Adults (2011)1. It focuses on the DID diagnosis section only (pp. 115-132) and reproduces key excerpts relevant to difficulties in diagnosing DID is difficultThe difficulties in diagnosing DID result primarily from lack of education among clinicians about dissociation, Dissociative disorders, and the effects of psychological trauma.

2 This leads to limited clinical suspicion about Dissociative disorders, misconceptions about their clinical presentation, and difficulty recognizing the signs and symptoms even when they occur spontaneously ( , auditory hallucinations are more common in DID than schizophrenia, but such symptoms are seen as markers of schizophrenia or often Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) in a trauma population).1. International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (2011). Guidelines for Treating Dissociative Identity Disorder in Adults, Third Revision. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 12(2), Identity Disorder diagnosis requires specialised clinical is strongly recommended that therapists have training for diagnosing and treating this Disorder , through programs available from the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Disassociation, practice DID clinical diagnosis: Make direct enquiry and describe specific situations where Dissociative symptoms have been evident.

3 Include in interview data behavioural descriptions to evidence the reported symptom/problem area. Utilise multiple modes and methods of assessment, self-report and behavioural observation; if using psychometrics, use both quantitative and qualitative analysis, of showing visibly distinct alternate identities, the typical DID patient presents a polysymptomatic mixture of Dissociative and posttraumatic stress Disorder (PTSD) symptoms within a matrix of ostensibly non-trauma-related symptoms ( , depression, panic attacks, substance abuse, somatoform symptoms, eating-disordered symptoms). The prominence of these latter, highly familiar symptoms often leads clinicians to diagnose only these comorbid diagnostic interviews and mental status examinations often do not include questions about dissociation, posttraumatic symptoms, or a history of psychological with DID rarely volunteer information about Dissociative symptoms ( , due to shame, previous dismissal, difficulty describing subjective experience).

4 The absence of focused inquiry about dissociation prevents the clinician from diagnosing the : Clinical studies in North America, Europe, and Turkey have found that generally between 1% to 5% of patients in general inpatient psychiatric units; in adolescent inpatient units; and in programs that treat substance abuse, eating disorders, and obsessive-compulsive Disorder meet DID diagnostic criteria , particularly when evaluated with structured diagnostic instruments. Many of the patients in these studies had not previously been clinically diagnosed with a Dissociative Disorder . It is likely that the rate of DID in the sensitive claims ACC client population will be at least this high, especially when the trauma is early, prolonged and severe in influences: Pathological alterations of Identity and/or consciousness may present within cultures as spirit possession and other culture-bound syndromes.

5 Clinicians should recognise these cultural influences as ways for patients with DID to articulate their not self .Controversy over DID diagnosisThere has historically been concern about the validity of DID as a diagnosis. The ISSTD guidelines (2011) report that peer reviewed research in at least 26 countries indicates that DID is a valid cross-cultural diagnosis having validity comparable or exceeding that of other accepted psychiatric diagnoses. There has been concern about a socio-cognitive model, where clinicians influence patients to enact DID symptoms. There is no research that shows that the complex phenomenology of DID can be created by suggestion or hypnosis. There is considerable evidence that patients present with DID predating any interaction with clinicians.

6 There is also an extensive body of literature studying the psychophysiology and psychobiology which adds to diagnostic validity. DID is nearly universally associated with a history of significant traumatisation most often first occurring in childhood and involving a care-giving figure. Despite its empirical foundation, the debate regarding DID legitimacy has continued. 3 DID diagnostic considerationsThe essential manifestation of pathological dissociation is a partial or complete disruption of the normal integration of a person s psychosomatic functioning. Specifically, dissociation can unexpectedly disrupt, alter, or intrude upon a person s consciousness and experience of body, world, self, mind, agency, intentionality, thinking, believing, knowing, recognizing, remembering, feeling, wanting, speaking, acting, seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and so on.

7 These disruptions are typically experienced by the person as startling, autonomous intrusions into his or her usual ways of responding or functioning, or frank omissions from normal psychosomatic operations ( , amnesia, anaesthesia, conversion paralysis). Dissociative IdentitiesA person with DID experiences himself or herself as having separate alternate identities that have relative psychological autonomy from one another. At various times, these subjective identities may take executive control of the person s body, mind and behaviour and/or influence his or her experience and behaviour from within. Taken together, the Dissociative identities make up the Identity or personality of the human being with DID, so they are not seen as multiple people but one person with multiple Dissociative identities.

8 Each Identity has its own autonomous sense of self, autobiographical memories, emotional range and beliefs. Some may be very elaborated, others quite should attend to the unique, personal language with which patients with DID characterise their Dissociative identities. Patients commonly refer to themselves as having parts, parts inside, aspects, facets, ways of being, voices, multiples, selves, ages of me, people, persons, individuals, spirits, demons, others, and so on. It can be helpful to use the terms that patients use to refer to their InterviewAt a minimum, the patient should be asked about episodes of amnesia, fugue, depersonalization, derealization, Identity confusion, and Identity alteration.

9 DID diagnostic instruments ( , SCID_D) and self-report screening measures ( , DES-II) may be useful for assessment (see Appendix 2).The most common Dissociative intrusions include hearing voices, depersonalization, derealization, unwilled and foreign ( made ) thoughts, urges, desires, emotions, and useful areas of inquiry are: spontaneous age regressions; autohypnotic experiences; hearing voices; passive-influence symptoms such as made thoughts, emotions, or behaviours ( , those that do not feel attributable to the self); and somatoform Dissociative symptoms, such as bodily sensations related to strong emotions and past manifestations of dissociation need to be considered, such as alterations in posture, presentation of self, dress, style of speech, interpersonal relatedness, skill level, and sophistication of cognition, writing style as well as fixed gaze and eye arising in DID diagnosisMistrust and reluctance to reveal inner feelingsThe process of diagnosing severe Dissociative disorders is complicated by people s early trauma and attachment difficulties and the resultant mistrust of others, especially authority figures.

10 Traumatized patients may be very reluctant to reveal an inner, hidden world to a clinician who may be seen as such a , the diagnostic process demands that the person reflect upon and report experiences that have been dissociated because they elicit such strong, negative, and contradictory clinicians take the time to develop a collaborative relationship based on increased levels of trust, the data from diagnostic interviews and self-report measures are unlikely to yield valid, useful and DisavowalThe presence of Dissociative identities and other Dissociative symptoms is commonly denied and disavowed by persons with DID. This kind of denial is consistent with the defensive function of disavowing both the trauma and its related emotions and the subsequent dissociated sense of self.