DID: Overview and Current Research

I ran across this article and thought it would be a fascinating one to discuss. I have not read it yet, but plan to.

"Abstract
This paper entails a description of factors related to diagnosis and treatment of Dissociative Identity Disorder. Epidemiology, including risk factors and sociocultural aspects of the disorder are presented, along with recommendations for treatment. Highlights of current research focusing on neurobiological and psychobiological aspects of DID provide additional insight into providing accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Recommendations for future research involve studies that will elaborate on research already completed, and provide a more detailed analysis of the characteristics of this unique and complex disorder."

more
http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/52 ... t-research

After reading a review article by NOS (Nijenhuis, Onnovan der Hart, K. Steele) I thought I would take up some MUCH lighter reading.

The student authors first paragraph of the article goes as follows:
Diagnosis
According to the diagnostic criteria outlined in the current edition of the DSM, diagnosis of DID requires the presence of at least two personalities, with a personality being identified as a entity having a unique pattern of perception, thought, and relational style involving the both the self and the environment. These personalities must also display a pattern of exerting control on the individual’s behavior. Extensive and unusual loss of memory pertaining to personal information another feature of DID. Differential diagnosis generally involves ruling out the effects of chemical substances and medical (as opposed to psychological) conditions. When evaluating children, it is also important to ensure that symptoms are distinguishable from imaginary play (American Psychiatric Association, 2000).

I assume they are referring to the DSM IV. Oh, this is going to be bad. First sentence he describes parts of the self as separate personalities bu t at least he/she does go on to define what they mean. I think this could be defined better, but that would take a lot of thought. It's as if the author just reworded the text of the DSM IV.

Thoughts?

For some reason, I am really having troubles with the writing style... I guess that it strikes me as a case where they read a bunch of articles, pulled out what the thought was interesting and tossed it all together without much critical thought. Some things in there just don't make sense to me, and I would have appreciated further discussion. As an example, "Females are more likely to receive a diagnosis of DID, at a ratio of 9:1 (Lewis-Hall, 2002). This author also contends that the disproportionately high number of females diagnosed with DID dispels the notion that incestual abuse is largely responsible for the development of DID." This assertion cries out for further discussion- why would a 9:1 ratio of females:males indicate that incest does not play a major role in the development of DID? I would agree that incest is not the be all and end all of causes for DID, but that particular argument seems rather incomplete to me when more females than males are survivors of incest.

Sorry that this has become a review of the writing quality, but for me it made it difficult for me to assume that the content is reliable.

I agree. Let's give it a D and move on.