Moyano O, Claudon P, Colin V, Svatos J, Thiébaut E
Centre de Recherches en Psychopathologie et Psychologie Cliniques, Université Lumière Lyon 2.
Encephale. 2001 Nov-Dec;27(6):559-69.
Questioned by several researches about dissociative disorders, the authors study differences established on the nosographic register, through a quantitative study and a psychodynamic argumentation in a sample of french population. From the utilisation of the Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) created by Bernstein E and Putnam FW (1986), which is an excellent screening tool for dissociative disorders and constructed on DSM II diagnostic criterions, the authors will show the interest of a psychodynamic analysis of dissociative disorders, in the face of the diagnostic difficulty in relation to several approaches of this concept. This difficulty is studied giving the background to dissociative disorders and depersonalization. Ionescu (1999) shows that between 1890 and 1910 dissociation represents one of major themes of psychology, psychopathology and psychiatry. Then, this interest about dissociation decreases and will be almost non-existent in the middle of the twentieth century. The interest for dissociative disorder will grow in the eighties with north-american studies about multiple personality disorders. Until 1980, dissociative disorders exist in DSM II as a list of symptoms included into hysterical neurosis, among the conversive disorders. In 1980, the publication of DSM III replaces the notion of hysteria with the notion of dissociative disorder. In this way, we can see on the one hand somatoform disorders quarterly corresponding to the ancient version of conversive hysteria, and on the other hand dissociative disorders characterized by a perturbation of consciousness, memory, identity or perception of environment. In 1994, The DSM IV delete the notion of hysteria and neurosis and keeps only the notion of dissociative disorders. They include now the five following categories: dissociative amnesia, dissociative fugue, depersonalization disorder, dissociative identity disorder, dissociative disorder not otherwise specified (including derealization). Depersonalization disorders consist of "persistent or recurrent episodes of depersonalization characterized by a feeling of detachment or estrangement from one's self. The individual may feel like an automation or like he or she is living in a dream or movie" (DSM IV). Depersonalization disorder cannot be diagnosed if it is part of schizophrenia, panic disorder, acute stress disorder or dissociative identity disorder. Various depressive disorders, hypocondriasis or obsessive-compulsive disorders can accompany depersonalization disorder. The first purpose of this study will search the frequency of dissociative disorders and depersonalization in a sample of normal population. Further, the inclusion of depersonalization amongst dissociative disorders seems not so evident: depersonalization belongs to self-consciousness disorder in french psychiatry. This fact seems more logical insofar as dissociative disorders have all together a memory and consciousness perturbation, and this perturbation is missing from depersonalization's feeling. The second purpose will be to clarify and specify the particularity of depersonalization among dissociative diorders, from the psychopathological point of view.
The sample (n = 248) is made up of french young adults aged 17 to 30 (mean age = 20, SD = 15 and 24% is male population). Subjects were streamming from universities. The screening tool which was used is the Dissociative Experiences Scale, a 28-item patient questionnaire regarding various dissociative symptoms. The subject is asked to indicate the percentage of time, to the nearest 5%, that particular symptom is experienced. The score is made by adding the various percentages and finding a mean that is expressed in numbers from 0 to 100. Normal scores are in the range of 5 to 15 in american adults.
The utilization of principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation is justified by the will to compare this study with American's studies. The mean score obtained is 17.44%, and 13.3% of the scores exceed a psychiatric threshold at 30%. The descriptive analysis shows that the component 1 (PCA without varimax rotation) represents 33.02% of total explained variance. This result demonstrates that the structure of the DES is based on one concept, the same as the american population, it is the concept of dissociation. The Principal Component Analysis with varimax rotation of the DES ratings yielded a tree-factor solution: imaginative absorption (F1), depersonalization-derealization (F2) and dissociative amnesia (F3). Mean score for each factor is respectively: F1 = 21.56%, F2 = 13.95%, F3 = 11.04%. DES reliability was studied through computation of Cronbach's coefficient (0.92). The PCA with varimax rotation brings to the fore a full dissociative disorder without any trouble of memory and consciousness. This fact questions again once more the link between hysteria and dissociative disorders. There is here a clinical distinction between depersonalization-derealization and other dissociative disorders. Indeed, the absence of significant alteration of memory and conscience is specific of depersonalization and derealization in this study.
Finally, this study concurs with DSM IV dissociative criterions. At last, one factor of PCA is composed by the association of depersonalization and derealization, in contradiction with DSM IV definition. This result shows that, into the french population, we cannot divide the two concepts.
在多项关于分离性障碍的研究引发质疑后,作者通过一项定量研究以及针对法国人群样本的心理动力学论证,探讨了在疾病分类记录中所确定的差异。利用伯恩斯坦·E和普特南·F·W(1986年)编制的分离体验量表(DES),这是一种用于分离性障碍的出色筛查工具,且基于《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第二版(DSM II)诊断标准构建,作者将展示面对与该概念的多种研究方法相关的诊断困难时,对分离性障碍进行心理动力学分析的意义。鉴于分离性障碍和人格解体的背景,对这一困难进行了研究。约内斯库(1999年)表明,在1890年至1910年间,分离是心理学、精神病理学和精神病学的主要主题之一。随后,对分离的这种兴趣有所下降,在20世纪中叶几乎不存在。对分离性障碍的兴趣在20世纪80年代随着北美对多重人格障碍的研究而增长。直到1980年,分离性障碍在DSM II中作为癔症性神经症中的一系列症状存在,属于转换性障碍。1980年,《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第三版(DSM III)的出版用分离性障碍的概念取代了癔症的概念。这样一来,一方面我们可以看到躯体形式障碍大致对应于转换性癔症的旧版本,另一方面分离性障碍的特征是意识、记忆、身份或对环境的感知受到干扰。1994年,《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版(DSM IV)删除了癔症和神经症的概念,仅保留了分离性障碍的概念。它们现在包括以下五个类别:分离性遗忘、分离性神游症、人格解体障碍、分离性身份障碍、未特定的分离性障碍(包括现实解体)。人格解体障碍由“持续或反复出现的人格解体发作组成,其特征是有一种与自我分离或疏远的感觉。个体可能感觉像一个自动装置,或者感觉自己生活在梦境或电影中”(DSM IV)。如果人格解体障碍是精神分裂症、惊恐障碍、急性应激障碍或分离性身份障碍的一部分,则不能诊断为人格解体障碍。各种抑郁障碍、疑病症或强迫症可能伴随人格解体障碍。本研究的首要目的是在正常人群样本中探寻分离性障碍和人格解体的发生率。此外,将人格解体纳入分离性障碍似乎并不那么明显:在法国精神病学中,人格解体属于自我意识障碍。鉴于分离性障碍都存在记忆和意识的干扰,而人格解体的感觉中不存在这种干扰,这一事实似乎更符合逻辑。第二个目的将是从精神病理学角度阐明并明确人格解体在分离性障碍中的特殊性。
样本(n = 248)由17至30岁的法国年轻成年人组成(平均年龄 = 20,标准差 = 15,男性占24%)。受试者来自大学。所使用的筛查工具是分离体验量表,这是一份关于各种分离症状的28项患者问卷。要求受试者指出特定症状出现的时间百分比,精确到最接近的5%。得分是通过将各种百分比相加并计算出一个从0到100的数字表示的平均值。美国成年人的正常得分范围是5至15。
采用主成分分析(PCA)并进行方差最大化旋转,是为了将本研究与美国的研究进行比较。获得的平均得分是17.44%,13.3%的得分超过了30%的精神病学阈值。描述性分析表明,成分1(未进行方差最大化旋转的PCA)占总解释方差的33.02%。这一结果表明,DES的结构基于与美国人群相同的一个概念,即分离的概念。对DES评分进行方差最大化旋转的主成分分析得出了一个三因素解决方案:想象性沉浸(F1)、人格解体 - 现实解体(F2)和分离性遗忘(F3)。每个因素的平均得分分别为:F1 = 21.56%,F2 = 13.95%,F3 = 11.04%。通过计算克朗巴哈系数(0.92)对DES的信度进行了研究。进行方差最大化旋转的PCA凸显了一种完全没有记忆和意识问题的分离性障碍。这一事实再次质疑了癔症与分离性障碍之间的联系。在人格解体 - 现实解体与其他分离性障碍之间存在临床区别。确实,在本研究中,记忆和意识无显著改变是人格解体和现实解体的特征。
最后,本研究与DSM IV的分离性障碍标准一致。最后,PCA的一个因素由人格解体和现实解体的关联组成,这与DSM IV的定义相矛盾。这一结果表明,在法国人群中,我们无法区分这两个概念。