Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective: Conversion, dissociation and somatization are historically related in the long established concept of hysteria. Somewhere along the way they were separated due to the Cartesian dualistic view. The aim of the present study was to compare these pathologies and investigate whether symptoms of these pathologies overlap in their clinical appearance in a Portuguese sample.

Method: Twenty-six patients with conversion disorder, 38 with dissociative disorders, 40 with somatization disorder, and a comparison group of 46 patients having other psychiatric disorders answered questions about dissociation (Dissociative Experiences Scale), somatoform dissociation (Somatoform Dissociation Questionnaire), and psychopathological symptoms (Brief Symptom Inventory).

Results: Dissociative and somatoform symptoms were significantly more frequent in dissociative and conversion disorder than in somatization disorder and controls. There were no significant differences between dissociative and conversion patients.

Conclusions: Conversion disorder is closely related to dissociative disorders. These results support the ICD-10 categorization of conversion disorder among dissociative disorders and the hypothesis of analogous psychopathological processes in conversion and dissociative disorders versus somatization disorder.

Keywords

conversion disorder dissociation dissociative disorder hysteria somatization disorder

Hysteria has been an important and well-accepted disease for 3900 years, with an extraordinary and irregular conceptual evolution that ended in its disappearance from the majority of scientific writings [1]. In 1980 hysteria was replaced by distinct illnesses in the DSM and ICD, namely somatization, dissociative, and conversion. The DSM-IV-TR classifies conversion disorder within somatoform disorders, along with somatization disorder [2]. In the ICD-10 conversion disorder is categorized as a dissociative disorder (keeping its ‘hysteria’ designation), and somatization disorder goes with somatoform disorders [3]. Many investigators, however, noted the great overlap between dissociative and somatoform disorders, as defined in DSM and ICD [4–8]. Several investigations showed that dissociative disorders may present with somatic symptoms [7, 9–17] and conversion symptoms [7, 10, 11, 18]. Conversely, many patients with somatization disorder also have dissociative symptoms [17, 19], especially if they have been abused [17, 20]. Additionally, many patients with conversion disorder report dissociative symptoms [8, 21–23], namely patients with pseudoneurological conversion conditions [24–29]. There is a great overlap between these disorders, and many studies have defended the inclusion of the conversion disorder in the group of dissociative disorders [6, 30, 31], like Pierre Janet's perspective [32]; while others have supported the differentiation between conversion and somatization [33].

Dissociation, somatic and psychological, seems to be the underlying mechanism of these three pathologies. The mechanism of psychoform dissociation involves the loss of the integration of consciousness, memory, identity, and perception of the environment [2]. Somatoform dissociation is viewed as the lack of integration of somatic experiences, functions and responses [34–38]. The most extensively employed self-report measures of dissociation, the Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) [39] and Somatoform Dissociation Questionnaire (SDQ-20) [36], were developed to measure psychoform and somatoform dissociation, respectively.

As far as we know, no other study has investigated the three hysterical nosological presentations, nor compared them with other psychopathological disorders in terms of somatoform and psychoform dissociation. This study was undertaken to assess the common and different features of somatization, dissociative and conversion disorders, studying the phenomena of psychoform dissociation, somatoform dissociation, and general psychopathology, and to compare them with other psychiatric conditions.

Methods

We present the cross-sectional and self-report data collected.

Subjects

We selected 151 patients from among 1162 consecutive cases registered between 2005 and 2006 from three mental health centres; they met DSM-IV criteria for conversion disorder (n=26), dissociative disorders (n=39), somatization disorder (n=40) and other psychiatric disorders (n=46). Twenty-seven were inpatients and 124 were outpatients. We ruled out patients with psychotic disorders, substance abuse disorders, bipolar disorder, personality disorders, and those under 18 years old. Expert clinicians with several years of training (mean practice=19.7 years) performed a longitudinal evaluation using all data available (LEAD methodology) [40]. Because of logistical factors, only the diagnoses of 62 of these patients were confirmed with a Portuguese version of the Dissociative Disorders Interview Schedule (DDIS) [41]. Due to discharge, two patients did not fill out the SDQ-20. None of the other psychiatric patients met criteria for any of the aforementioned disorders. All patients gave written informed consent, and anonymity was preserved, according to the Code of Medical Ethics of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki.

The demographic characteristics of the samples are listed in Table 1. There were no significant differences in age among the four groups (F=1.81, df=3, p>0.05), nor between genders (χ²=1.14, df=3, p>0.05), marital status (χ²=3.10, df=3, p>0.05), school years (F=1.82, df=3, p>0.05), or number of inpatients versus number of outpatients (χ²=7.07, df=3, p>0.05). Table 2 lists the subsample diagnosis frequencies.

Table 1.

Subject characteristics

	Total	Age (years)		Gender (M/F)		Marital Status (married/single)		School years
Groups	n	Mean	SD	n	%	n	%	Mean	SD
Dissociative disorders	39	34.0	11.7	11/28	28.2/71.8	20/19	51.3/48.7	9.7	4.5
Conversion disorder	26	27.4	8.8	6/20	23.1/76.9	8/18	30.8/69.2	10.9	4.1
Somatization disorder	40	32.6	12.8	14/26	35.0/65.0	15/25	37.5/62.5	11.4	3.7
Other psychiatric disorders	46	31.5	11.3	14/32	30.4/69.6	18/28	39.1/60.9	11.7	4.4
Total	151	31.7	11.5	45/106	29.8/70.2	61/90	40.4/59.6	10.9	4.2

Table 2.

Group pathologies and their main disorder frequencies (n=151).

Group pathologies	Disorders	n	%

Conversion disorders		26	17.2
	Pseudo seizure	1	0.7
	Combination	3	2.0
	Motor	10	6.6
	Sensorial	12	7.9

Dissociative disorders		39	25.8
	DDNOS	10	6.6
	Fugue	7	5.3
	Amnesia	11	7.3
	De-personalization	11	7.3

Somatization disorder		40	26.5

Other psychiatric disorders		46	30.5
	Panic disorder	8	5.3
	Specific phobias	8	5.3
	Social phobia	9	6.0
	Depression	10	6.6
	OCD	11	7.3

OCD, obsessive–compulsive disorder; DDNOS, dissociative disorder not otherwise specified.

Instruments

Dissociative Experiences Scale: Portuguese version

The DES is a self-administered 28-item questionnaire that measures the frequency of dissociative experiences [39], with subjects answering by circling the percentage of time they experience dissociation (0–100 in increments of 10%). The Portuguese version has good reliability (Cronbach's α=0.94) [42].

Somatoform Dissociation Questionnaire

The SDQ-20 is a 20-item self-administered tool to evaluate the intensity of somatoform dissociation [36]. Reliability of the Portuguese form was 0.88 (Cronbach's α) [43].

Brief Symptom Inventory

The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) is a 53-item self-report clinical rating scale that measures psychological distress (global severity index: GSI) and nine dimensions: somatization, interpersonal sensitivity, anxiety, phobic anxiety, obsessive–compulsive symptoms, depression, hostility, paranoid ideation, and psychoticism [44]. We used the Portuguese threshold of ≥1.7 [45] for each subscale as an indication of symptom severity. These symptom subscales do not correspond to psychiatric diagnosis. Cronbach's alpha for the subscales ranged from 0.62 (phobic anxiety) to 0.80 (somatization).

Dissociative Disorders Interview Schedule

The DDIS is a 131-item semi-structured interview that identifies all dissociative disorders, somatization disorder, and conversion disorder according to DSM-IV diagnoses, and in agreement with a Portuguese adaptation (sensitivity=84%, specificity=100%, and overall κ=0.83) [41, 46].

Statistical analysis

Data were analysed using SPSS 11.0.3, for Mac OS X (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). Subjects with the four diagnoses were compared with each other according to the frequency (mean DES scores) and severity (cut-off score ≥30) of dissociative experiences; mean SDQ-20 scores, and severity; distress and psychopathological symptoms from the BSI. None of these measures was normally distributed, therefore Kruskal–Wallis tests were used, followed by post-hoc Mann–Whitney tests on each pair of groups and adjusted p with Bonferroni method (p divided by the six paired comparisons made; in this way a significant level was set at p<0.008).

Results

Results are described through the DES, SDQ and BSI measures used in this study.

Psychoform dissociation: DES

The DES ratings of all 151 patients ranged from 1.92 to 72.69, with a mean±SD of 26.82; there were no significant differences (U=23.42, p=0.935) between the mean DES scores of women (26.32±14.03) and men (27.97±17.55) or between single (26.23±15.34) and married patients (27.69±14.90) (U=2555.50, p=0.579). Inpatients (mean±SD=30.06±15.40) and outpatients (mean±SD= 26.10±15.06) did not differ significantly (U=1425.00, p=0.249). There was no significant correlation between age and the scale scores (ρ=0.138, p=0.094) or between number of school years and scale scores (ρ=0.102, p=0.214). Thirty-eight per cent of the patients scored ≥30. There were no significant differences between higher and lower scores in terms of demographic characteristics.

Mean±SD DES scores were higher for the conversion patients, followed by dissociative disorders, somatization, and the comparison group. These scores differed significantly overall (H=68.86, df=3, p<0.001, Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance by ranks). Pairwise post-hoc U-tests showed that dissociative and conversion patients did not differ, nor did somatizing patients from the comparison group. The other group comparisons, however, were significantly different. These results are shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

DES, SDQ, GSI scores and psychopathological symptoms (n=151)

	Conversion disorder (n=26)		Dissociative disorders (n=39)		Somatization disorder (n=40)		Other psychiatric disorders (n=46)		Kruskal–Wallis (df=3)
Measures	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	H	p
DES	43.49	12.33	36.02	10.10	19.39	11.89	18.02	8.37	68.86	0.000
SDQ	39.76	14.15	39.28	11.88	31.81	9.16	29.61	7.06	20.46	0.000

BSI
GSI	1.48	0.43	1.55	0.57	1.54	0.54	1.23	0.43	10.40	0.015
Somatization	2.00	0.92	1.05	0.78	1.74	0.75	0.89	0.59	27.30	0.000
Interpersonal sensitivity	1.46	0.69	1.42	0.82	1.63	0.72	1.43	0.66	1.39	0.709
Anxiety	1.71	0.82	1.39	0.65	1.54	0.80	1.30	0.64	3.40	0.335
Phobic anxiety	0.97	0.97	0.52	0.65	0.85	0.83	0.92	0.73	4.30	0.232
Psychoticism	1.43	0.93	1.53	0.93	1.17	0.65	1.10	0.63	4.92	0.178
Obsessive compulsion	1.71	0.67	1.70	0.80	1.74	0.66	1.48	0.59	2.53	0.471
Depression	1.50	0.85	1.98	1.20	1.56	0.86	1.50	0.73	1.60	0.659
Hostility	1.06	0.68	0.97	0.78	1.32	0.87	1.09	0.67	1.52	0.679
Paranoid ideation	1.69	0.69	1.78	0.77	1.59	0.68	1.37	0.58	3.95	0.267

BSI, Brief Symptom Inventory; CV, conversion disorder; DD, dissociative disorder; DES, Dissociative Experiences Scale; GSI, global severity index; OP, other psychiatric disorder; SDQ, Somatoform Dissociation Questionnaire; So, somatization disorder.

Pairwise post-hoc Mann–Whitney test: DES: CV>So∗∗∗; CV>OP∗∗; DD>So∗∗∗; DD>OP∗∗∗. Other comparisons non significant. SDQ: CV>OP∗∗; DD>So∗; DD>OP∗. Other comparisons non significant. GSI: comparisons non significant. Somatization: Co>OP∗∗∗, So>OP∗∗∗.

∗p<0.0083, ∗∗p<0.0017, ∗∗∗p<0.00017 (Bonferroni-corrected).

The proportions of patients from the diagnostic categories with scores above cut-off on the DES are presented in Table 4. Conversion and dissociative patients had significantly more severe dissociative experiences than patients with somatization or other psychiatric disorders (H=58.73, df=3, p<0.001).

Table 4.

Scores above the cut-offs on DES and SDQ-20 (n=151).

Pathology	DES≥30		SDQ≥35
	n	%	n	%
Conversion disorders	29	78.4	22	59.5
Dissociative disorders	18	69.2	15	60.0
Somatization disorder	6	15.0	10	25.0
Other psychiatric disorders	5	10.9	10	21.7
Kruskal–Wallis (df=3)	58.73∗∗∗		20.14∗∗∗

CV, conversion disorder; DD, dissociative disorder; DES, Dissociative Experiences Scale; OP, other psychiatric disorder; SDQ, Somatoform Dissociation Questionnaire; So, somatization disorder.

Pairwise Post-hoc Mann–Whitney test: DES: CV>So ∗∗∗; CV>OP∗∗∗; DD>So∗∗∗; DD>OP∗∗∗. Other comparisons non-significant. SDQ: CV>So∗; CV>OP∗∗; DD>So∗; DD>OP∗∗∗. Other comparisons non-significant.

∗p<0.0083, ∗∗p<0.0017, ∗∗∗p<0.00017 (Bonferroni-corrected).

Somatoform dissociation: SDQ

The SDQ ranged from 20.00 to 76.00 and had a mean±SD of 32.00±11.29 for all patients. Women scored 34.32±11.73 and men, 33.56±10.30, and their differences were not significant (U=2145.00, p=0.394); single patients scored 33.01±9.58 and married patients scored 35.67±13.34, and their difference was also non-significant (U=2453.00, p=0.465). Inpatients had significantly higher (U=1215.00, p=0.038) somatoform dissociation scores (mean±SD=39.15±14.21) than outpatients (mean±SD= 32.96±10.26). There was no significant correlation between scale scores and age (ρ=0.121, p=0.142). Less-educated subjects, however, had higher scores (ρ=−0.231, p=0.005). A score of ≥35 was attained by 38% of the patients.

Conversion patients also had higher mean±SD SDQ scores, followed by dissociative patients, then somatizing patients, and then other psychiatric patients. These scores differed significantly (H=20.46, df=3, p<0.001). The post-hoc Mann–Whitney tests indicated significant group differences between dissociative and somatizing patients, dissociative patients and controls, and between conversion patients and controls. Once again, dissociative and conversion patients did not differ from each other, nor did somatizing patients from controls. Conversion patients did not differ from somatizing patients (Table 3).

More conversion patients scored >35, followed by dissociative, then somatization and other psychiatric patients; these differences were significant (H=20.14, df=3, p<0.001; Table 4).

Psychopathology

The BSI data are presented in Table 3. The mean GSI scores were below the 1.7 threshold for the four groups. Conversion patients scored >1.7 in anxiety and obsessive–compulsive symptoms. Dissociative patients had higher levels in obsessive, depression and paranoid symptoms. Somatizing patients scored higher in somatization and obsessive symptoms. As a group, patients with other psychiatric disorders did not score high in any subscales. There were no significant differences between any paired groups in mean±SD GSI scores. We found significant differences only in somatization symptoms, with conversion patients and somatization patients having higher levels than patients with other psychiatric diagnoses.

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to analyse the relationship between conversion disorder, dissociative disorders and somatization disorder across the spectrums of psychoform dissociation, somatoform dissociation, and general psychopathology.

As far as we know, there is only one investigation that has compared conversion and somatization disorder with regard to psychoform dissociative symptoms, and that study reported no significant differences [21]; the present results do not support that study: the patients with conversion had higher scores.

We found no studies that compared dissociative and somatization disorder, considering psychoform dissociation. The present findings indicate that dissociative patients scored higher than the somatization subjects.

We also found that patients with conversion, and dissociative disorder patients differed significantly from somatization patients regarding somatoform dissociative symptoms; no other study measured this aspect.

The main finding was a closer association between conversion and dissociative disorders, than between conversion and somatization disorder. This result is supported by: (i) greater psychoform and somatoform dissociation in conversion and dissociation; (ii) a lack of differences between conversion and dissociative disorders using measures of psychoform dissociation, somatoform dissociation and general psychopathology; and (iii) differences between conversion and somatization disorder in psychoform but not somatoform dissociation. Additionally, there is a common element to the three groups of pathology, and this is the obsessive symptoms.

These are timely findings, considering the discussion regarding somatoform disorder classification. There are both practical [47, 48] and theoretical issues [49]. Some argue that conversion is misplaced in DSM-IV [6–8, 37] and should be reunited with dissociative disorders [6, 7, 22, 50–52] or that it definitely has a dissociative component [21, 23, 53]. We also propose that conversion is re-conceptualized as a particular type of dissociative disorder, with a somatization aspect. We suggest that psychoform and somatoform dissociation are specific mechanisms of dissociative and conversion disorders.

There were some limitations to the present study. Given the small sample size, it is possible that some statistically significant differences occurred by chance, thus the conclusions are limited to general trends, and larger replication studies are required.

Also, the demographics were disproportionate in relation to the population; despite the fact that we had no significant differences in the proportions of demographic characteristics across the four groups, this selection bias may limit the generalization of the study. We do know, however, that women are more likely to search for medical or psychological help [54], and are usually overrepresented in these studies. Moreover, men and women had no significant differences in mean DES or SDQ scores or in the proportion of higher scores. We are aware that younger subjects tend to report higher levels of psychological dissociation [34, 55–59] and somatoform dissociation [16, 60]. The same tendency occurs in less-educated subjects for somatoform dissociation [16, 60]. These possible selection biases were controlled: there was no correlation between age or number of school years and scores of the DES or SDQ, except for the proportion of patients with an elevated SDQ score, who were less educated. Thus, it is important to control the level of education in further studies. Some studies show a relationship between being single and psychological dissociation [57–59], and somatoform dissociation [57]. Again, there were no significant differences in mean DES or SDQ scores or in the proportion of higher scores between single and married subjects.

A potential bias may have occurred due to the self-report measures. It is possible that symptom exaggeration and contamination with social desirability took place, because we used the structured interview for only 62 subjects (41%). In addition, we recognize that individuals with psychiatric conditions may have a comorbid dissociative disorder that goes undiagnosed unless a structured interview takes place [61]. Moreover, we used wide psychiatric categories instead of specific diagnosis, which could introduce unmeasured confusion. And it has been demonstrated that conversion disorder could be a heterogeneous diagnostic category [62]. Additionally, the evaluators were not blind to the diagnosis. Therefore, a growing area for replication would be to use structured interviews combined with self-report measures, do more research on specific diseases, and involve blinded interviewers, unaware of the investigation hypothesis.

Despite these limitations, there were also strengths in the present study. The participants were inpatients and outpatients: knowing that inpatients are more likely to have psychiatric comorbidity, outpatients could have introduced fewer biases. We used, as well, a consecutive sampling procedure, which made the sample closer to a community sample. Finally, this study was the first to explore the three types of hysteria through psychological and somatoform dissociation.

References

1. Veith

. Hysteria, the history of a disease. University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1965.

2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th edn, text rev. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 2000.

3. World Health Organization. The ICD-10, Classification of mental and behavioural disorders Geneva: World Health Organization, 1994.

4. Cardeña

Nijenhuis

. Embodied sorrow: a special issue on somatoform dissociation. J Trauma Dissociation 2000; 1: 1–6.

5. Lipsanen

Saarijärvi

Lauerma

. Exploring the relations between depression, somatization, dissociation, and alexithymia: overlapping or independent constructs?. Psychopathology 2004; 37: 200–206.

6. Nemiah

. Dissociation, conversion, and somatization. Dissociative disorders: A clinical review, Spiegel

. Sidran Press, Lutherville 1993; 104–117.

7. Saxe

Chinman

Berkowitz

. Somatization in patients with dissociative disorders. Am J Psychiatry 1994; 151: 1329–1334.

8. Spitzer

Spelsberg

Grabe

H-J

Mundt

Freyberger

. Dissociative experiences and psychopathology in conversion disorders. J Psychosom Res 1999; 46: 291–294.

9. Boon

Draijer

. Diagnosing dissociative disorders in the Netherlands: a pilot study with the structured interview for DSM-III-R dissociative disorders. Am J Psychiatry 1991; 148: 458–462.

10.

10. Coons

. Dissociative disorder not otherwise specified: a clinical investigation of 50 cases with suggestions for typology and treatment. Dissociation 1992; 5: 187–195.

11.

11. Coons

. Psychogenic amnesia: a clinical investigation of 25 cases. Dissociation 1992; 5: 73–79.

12.

12. Nijenhuis

ERS

Spinhoven

Van Dyck

Van der Hart

Vanderlinden

. Psychometric characteristics of the somatoform dissociation questionnaire: a replication study. Psychother Psychosom 1998; 67: 17–23.

13.

13. Nijenhuis

ERS

Van Dyck

Spinhoven

. Somatoform dissociation discriminates among diagnostic categories over and above general psychopathology. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 1999; 33: 511–520.

14.

14. Ross

Fast

Anderson

Auty

Todd

. Somatic symptoms in multiple sclerosis and MPD. Dissociation 1990; 3: 102–106.

15.

15. Ross

Miller

Reagor

Bjornson

Fraser

Anderson

. Structured interview data on 102 cases of multiple personality disorder from four Centers. Am J Psychiatry 1990; 147: 596–601.

16.

16. Sar

Kundakçı

Kızıltan

Bakim

Bozkurt

. Differentiating dissociative disorders from other diagnostic groups through somatoform dissociation in Turkey. J Trauma Dissociation 2000; 1: 67–80.

17.

17. Walker

Katon

Neraas

Jemelka

Massoth

. Dissociation in women with chronic pelvic pain. Am J Psychiatry 1992; 149: 534–537.

18.

18. Martínez-Taboas

. Multiple personality disorder in Puerto Rico: analysis of fifteen cases. Dissociation 1991; 4: 189–192.

19.

19. Brown

Schrag

Trimble

. Dissociation, childhood interpersonal trauma, and family functioning in patients with somatization disorder. Am J Psychiatry 2005; 162: 899–905.

20.

20. Pribor

Yutzy

Dean

Wetzel

. Briquet's syndrome, dissociation, and abuse. Am J Psychiatry 1993; 150: 1507–1511.

21.

21. Guz

Doganay

Ozkan

Colak

Tomac

Sarisoy

. Conversion and somatization disorders: the dissociative symptoms and other characteristics. J Psychosom Res 2004; 56: 287–291.

22.

22. Spitzer

Freyberger

Stieglitz

R-D

. Adaptation and psychometric properties of the German version of the dissociative experiences scale. J Trauma Stress 1998; 11: 799–809.

23.

23. Tezcan

Atmaca

Kuloglu

Gecici

Buyukbayram

Tutkun

. Dissociative disorders in Turkish inpatients with conversion disorder. Compr Psychiatry 2003; 44: 324–330.

24.

24. Akyüz

Kugu

Akyüz

Dogan

. Dissociation and childhood abuse history in epileptic and pseudoseizure patients. Epileptic Disord 2006; 6: 187–192.

25.

25. Bowman

Markand

. Psychodynamics and psychiatric diagnoses of pseudoseizure subjects. Am J Psychiatry 1996; 153: 57–63.

26.

26. D'Alessio

Giagante

Oddo

. Psychiatric disorders in patients with psychogenic non-epileptic seizures, with and without comorbid epilepsy. Seizure 2006; 15: 333–339.

27.

27. Harden

. Pseudoseizures and dissociative disorders: a common mechanism involving traumatic experiences. Seizure 1997; 6: 151–155.

28.

28. Prueter

Schultz-Venrath

Rimpau

. Dissociative and associated psychopathological symptoms in patients with epilepsy, pseudoseizures, and both seizure forms. Epilepsia 2002; 43: 188–192.

29.

29. Van Merode

Twellaar

Kotsopoulos

IAW

. Psychological characteristics of patients with newly developed psychogenic seizures. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2004; 75: 1175–1177.

30.

30. Bowman

. Why conversion seizures should be classified as a dissociative disorder. Psychiatr Clin North Am 2006; 29: 185–211.

31.

31. Cardeña

Spiegel

. Diagnostic issues, criteria and comorbidity of dissociative disorders. Handbook of dissociation: theoretical, empirical, and clinical perspectives, Michelson

Ray

. Plenum, New York 1996; 227–250.

32.

32. Janet

. The mental state of hystericals. Putnam, New York 1901.

33.

33. Kent

Tomasson

Coryell

. Course and outcome of conversion and somatization disorders: a four-year follow-up. Psychosomatics 1995; 36: 138–144.

34.

34. Näring

Nijenhuis

ERS

. Relationships between self-reported potentially traumatizing events, psychoform and somatoform dissociation, and absorption, in two non-clinical populations. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2005; 39: 982–988.

35.

35. Nijenhuis

ERS

. Somatoform dissociation: major symptoms of dissociative disorders. J Trauma Dissoc 2000; 4: 7–32.

36.

36. Nijenhuis

ERS

Spinhoven

Van Dyck

Van der Hart

Vanderlinden

. The development and psychometric characteristics of the somatoform dissociation questionnaire (SDQ-20). J Nerv Ment Dis 1996; 184: 688–694.

37.

37. Van der Hart

Van Dijke

Van Son

Steele

. Somatoform dissociation in traumatized World War I combat soldiers: a neglected clinical heritage. J Trauma Dissociation 2000; 1: 33–65.

38.

38. Waller

Hamilton

Elliot

. Somatoform dissociation, psychological dissociation, and specific forms of trauma. J Trauma Dissociation 2000; 1: 81–98.

39.

39. Bernstein

Putnam

. Development, reliability and validity of a dissociation scale. J Nerv Ment Dis 1986; 174: 727–735.

40.

40. Spitzer

. Psychiatric diagnosis: are clinicians still necessary?. Compr Psychiatry 1983; 24: 399–411.

41.

41. Ross

Heber

Norton

Anderson

Barchet

. The Dissociative Disorders Interview Schedule: a structured interview. Dissociation 1989; 2: 169–189.

42.

42. Sharpe

Mayou

. Somatoform disorders: a help or hindrance to good patient care?. Br J Med Psychol 2004; 184: 465–467.

43.

43. Espirito Santo

Pio Abreu

. Dissociative disorders and other psychopathological groups: exploring the differences through somatoform dissociation questionnaire (SDQ-20). Rev Bras Psiquiatr 2007; 29: 354–358.

44.

44. Derogatis

Melisaratos

. The brief symptom inventory: an introductory report. Psychol Med 1983; 13: 596–605.

45.

45. Canavarro

. Inventário de sintomas psicopatológicos. Testes e provas projectivas em Portugal, Simões

Gonçalves

Almeida

. APPORT, Braga 1988; 2: 95–109.

46.

46. Espirito Santo

Madeira

Pio Abreu

. Versão portuguesa do dissociative disorders interview schedule (DDIS-P), estudo preliminar de adaptação a uma amostra da população portuguesa. Rev Port Psiquiatr 2007; 28: 5–17.

47.

47. Kendell

Jablensky

. Distinguishing between the validity and utility of psychiatric diagnoses. Am J Psychiatry 2003; 160: 4–12.

48.

48. Wessely

Nimnuan

Sharpe

. Functional somatic syndromes: one or many?. Lancet 1999; 354: 936–939.

49.

49. Mayou

. Medically unexplained physical symptoms. Br Med J 1991; 303: 534–535.

50.

50. Krüger

Van Staden

. Is conversion a dissociative symptom?. Bridging East West Psychiatry 2003; 1: 88–94.

51.

51. Sar

Akyüz

Kundaki

Kiziltan

Dogan

. Childhood trauma, dissociation, and psychiatric comorbidity in patients with conversion disorder. Am J Psychiatry 2004; 161: 2271–2276.

52.

52. Sharpe

Mayou

. Somatoform disorders: a help or hindrance to good patient care?. Br J Med Psychol 2004; 184: 465–467.

53.

53. Moene

Spinhoven

Hoogduin

Sandyck

Roelofs

. Hypnotizability, dissociation and trauma in patients with a conversion disorder: an exploratory study. Clin Psychol Psychother 2001; 8: 400–410.

54.

54. World Health Organization. Gender and women's mental health. Geneva: WHO, 2006. [cited 21 December 2006.] Available from URL: http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/genderwomen/en/print.html .

55.

55. Dorahy

Lewis

Millar

Gee

. Predictors of nonpathological dissociation in Northern Ireland: the affects of trauma and exposure to political violence. J Trauma Stress 2003; 16: 611–615.

56.

56. Espirito Santo

HMA

Pio-Abreu

. Demographic and mental health factors associated with pathological dissociation in a Portuguese sample. J Trauma Dissociation 2008; 9: 369–387.

57.

57. Maaranen

Tanskanen

Kaisa

. The relationship between psychological and somatoform dissociation in the general population. J Nerv Ment Dis 2005; 193: 690–692.

58.

58. Spitzer

Barnow

Grabe

H-J

. Frequency, clinical and demographic correlates of pathological dissociation in Europe. J Trauma Dissociation 2006; 7: 51–56.

59.

59. Seedat

Stein

Forde

. Prevalence of dissociative experiences in a community sample: relationship to gender, ethnicity, and substance use. J Nerv Ment Dis 2003; 191: 115–120.

60.

60. Maaranen

Tanskanen

Haatainen

Koivumaa-Honkanen

Hintikka

Viinamäki

. Somatoform dissociation and adverse childhood experiences in the general population. J Nerv Ment Dis 2004; 192: 337–342.

61.

61. Saxe

Van der Kolk

Berkowitz

. Dissociative disorders in psychiatric inpatients. Am J Psychiatry 1993; 150: 1037–1042.

62.

62. Stone

Sharpe

Binzer

. Motor conversion symptoms and pseudoseizures: a comparison of clinical characteristics. Psychosomatics 2004; 45: 492–499.

Psychiatric Symptoms and Dissociation in Conversion,Somatization and Dissociative Disorders

Abstract

Keywords

Methods

Subjects

Instruments

Dissociative Experiences Scale: Portuguese version

Somatoform Dissociation Questionnaire

Brief Symptom Inventory

Dissociative Disorders Interview Schedule

Statistical analysis

Results

Psychoform dissociation: DES

Somatoform dissociation: SDQ

Psychopathology

Discussion

References