The Dissociative Symptoms Scale: Psychometric properties of Scores on a German Version
Johannes Bodo Heekerens
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Psychometric validation study |
|---|---|
| Sample size | 257 |
| Population | Clinical samples primarily composed of individuals with affective disorders, borderline personality disorder (BPD), and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) |
| Measures | Dissociative Symptoms Scale (DSS) |
| Key points | Scores on the German translation of the Dissociative Symptoms Scale largely aligned with the expected four-factor structure and showed adequate internal consistency (omega at or above .76 for subscales), strong convergent validity with other dissociation measures, good discriminant validity with personality facets, and good concurrent validity with psychopathology indicators. The authors conclude the G-DSS is reliable and valid for assessing dissociative symptoms in clinical populations similar to those studied. |
Abstract
Dissociation is a widespread phenomenon with significant mental health implications. The 20-item Dissociative Symptoms Scale (DSS; Carlson et al., 2018) was developed to measure moderately severe levels of dissociation across a broad range of clinical populations. The factor structure of the DSS comprises four domains: Depersonalization/Derealization, Gaps in Awareness and Memory, Cognitive-Behavioral Reexperiencing, and Sensory Misperceptions. In this article, we present a German translation of the DSS (G-DSS) and examine the psychometric properties of scores on the G-DSS. Across two studies (N_total = 257) involving clinical samples primarily composed of individuals with affective disorders, borderline personality disorder (BPD), and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), we demonstrate that G-DSS scores mostly align with the expected four-factor structure. In addition, G-DSS scores demonstrated adequate internal consistency (ω ≥ .76 for subscales), strong convergent validity with high correlations to scores on other dissociation measures, good discriminant validity with weak or nonsignificant correlations to scores on personality facets, and good concurrent validity with positive correlations to scores on psychopathology indicators. We conclude that scores on the G-DSS are reliable and valid for assessing dissociative symptoms in clinical populations similar to the samples studied, which can enhance our understanding of dissociation’s structure and clinical implications.