Malingering dissociative identity disorder: objective and projective assessment

Area of Science:

• Psychology
• Psychopathology
• Forensic Psychology

Background:

• Dissociative identity disorder (DID) diagnosis is complex and challenging.
• Concerns exist regarding the potential for malingering DID on psychological assessments.
• Objective and projective tests are commonly used in DID evaluations.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate the distinguishability of genuine DID from simulated DID on objective and projective measures.
• To assess the efficacy of the Dissociative Experiences Scale II and the Rorschach Inkblot Test in detecting malingering of DID.
• To inform diagnostic practices for dissociative identity disorder.

Main Methods:

• Fifty undergraduate women participated, divided into a Malingering group (simulating DID) and a Control group.
• Participants completed the Rorschach Inkblot Test and the Dissociative Experiences Scale II.
• Statistical analyses compared performance between the Malingering and Control groups.

Main Results:

• Malingerers were significantly more likely to endorse dissociative experiences on the Dissociative Experiences Scale II, mimicking diagnosed DID patients.
• No significant differences were found between malingerers and controls on the Rorschach Inkblot Test.
• Objective measures may be more susceptible to malingering than projective measures in DID assessment.

Conclusions:

• The findings suggest that dissociative identity disorder can be effectively malingered on objective self-report measures.
• The Rorschach Inkblot Test did not differentiate between malingerers and controls, indicating its limitations in detecting DID malingering in this study.
• A multifaceted assessment strategy, integrating both objective and projective tools, is essential for accurate DID diagnosis.
• Further research with clinical populations is recommended to validate these findings.