Psychometrics of Three Dissociation Scales: Reliability and Validity Data on the DESR, DES-II, and DESC.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Meline A Arzoumanian, E Grace Verbeck, Jan E Estrellado, Kenneth J Thompson, Kristen Dahlin, Emily J Hennrich, Jessica M Stevens, Constance J Dalenberg
{"title":"Psychometrics of Three Dissociation Scales: Reliability and Validity Data on the DESR, DES-II, and DESC.","authors":"Meline A Arzoumanian,&nbsp;E Grace Verbeck,&nbsp;Jan E Estrellado,&nbsp;Kenneth J Thompson,&nbsp;Kristen Dahlin,&nbsp;Emily J Hennrich,&nbsp;Jessica M Stevens,&nbsp;Constance J Dalenberg","doi":"10.1080/15299732.2022.2119633","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The current study assessed the reliability and validity of three measures of dissociation. Three hundred students completed the Dissociative Experiences Scale Revised (DESR), the Dissociative Experiences Scale-II (DES-II), and the Dissociative Experiences Scale Comparison (DESC); an additional 252 community adults evaluated clarity of instructions. Findings revealed that the three dissociation measures showed acceptable test-retest reliability and Cronbach's alphas. The DESR and DES-II strongly intercorrelated, but the DESC correlated only moderately with the two remaining dissociation measures, sharing less than 10% of the variance with the original scale. Additionally, the DESR and DES-II showed stronger convergent validity (correlation with measures of alexithymia and post-traumatic stress disorder) than did the DESC. The DESC was the only measure unrelated to trauma history. Participants reported substantially greater difficulty in understanding and utilizing the metric offered by the DESC. In conclusion, evidence supports the DES-II and DESR as alternate measures, but the DESC requires more investigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2022.2119633","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The current study assessed the reliability and validity of three measures of dissociation. Three hundred students completed the Dissociative Experiences Scale Revised (DESR), the Dissociative Experiences Scale-II (DES-II), and the Dissociative Experiences Scale Comparison (DESC); an additional 252 community adults evaluated clarity of instructions. Findings revealed that the three dissociation measures showed acceptable test-retest reliability and Cronbach's alphas. The DESR and DES-II strongly intercorrelated, but the DESC correlated only moderately with the two remaining dissociation measures, sharing less than 10% of the variance with the original scale. Additionally, the DESR and DES-II showed stronger convergent validity (correlation with measures of alexithymia and post-traumatic stress disorder) than did the DESC. The DESC was the only measure unrelated to trauma history. Participants reported substantially greater difficulty in understanding and utilizing the metric offered by the DESC. In conclusion, evidence supports the DES-II and DESR as alternate measures, but the DESC requires more investigation.

三种解离量表的心理测量学:DESR、DES-II和DESC的信度和效度数据。
目前的研究评估了三种分离方法的信度和效度。300名学生完成了解离体验量表修订(DESR)、解离体验量表ii (DES-II)和解离体验量表比较(DESC);另外252名社区成年人评估了指令的清晰度。结果显示,三种解离测量具有可接受的重测信度和Cronbach's alpha。DESR和DES-II具有很强的相关性,但DESC与其余两种解离测量仅适度相关,与原始量表的方差小于10%。此外,DESR和DES-II显示出比DESC更强的收敛效度(与述情障碍和创伤后应激障碍的测量相关),DESC是唯一与创伤史无关的测量。参与者报告在理解和使用DESC提供的指标方面有更大的困难。总之,证据支持DES-II和DESR作为替代措施,但DESC需要更多的调查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信