Trauma-Related Dissociation Is No Fantasy: Addressing the Errors of Omission and Commission in Merckelbach and Patihis (2018)

Dissociation is commonly a response to trauma that can be associated with significant impairment. In order to deal with dissociation in court from a comprehensive, scientifically informed, and valid perspective, Brand, Schielke, and Brams (Psychological Injury and Law, 10, 283-297, 2017a, b) provided a balanced view of dissociation, its characteristics, evidence base, and best assessment practices. Without an approach such as this, forensic experts risk having insufficient knowledge in its causation, phenomenology, and assessment and accordingly misunderstand trauma-related dissociation (TRD). Brand et al. (Psychological Injury and Law, 10, 283-297, 2017a, b) addressed this issue by providing an overview of TRD relevant to forensic contexts, acknowledging some of the erroneous and misinformed approaches to the topic. Merckelbach and Patihis (2018) offered a critique of Brand et al. (Psychological Injury and Law, 10, 283-297, 2017a, b) that illustrated this lack of knowledge and misunderstanding about TRD. Many of the statements made by these authors are conceptually inaccurate or scientifically misinformed. As we show, they were incorrect when they stated that research is lacking about the inter-rater reliability of dissociative disorder (DD) diagnoses. They were unaware of the error rates of tests and interviews among dissociative samples, which we present here. Merckelbach and Patihis challenged Brand et al., arguing their methods and literature review “lacked a connectivity to existing science” (p. 3), despite extensive citations of studies with DD patients. They argued that we failed to adequately consider malingering despite our discussions of empirically supported methods for assessing it. We show that Merckelbach and Patihis overlooked research that does not support their views. As we review their comments, we illustrate their pattern of misreading and misunderstanding our papers, as well as lapses in their reasoning. The current paper reinforces that in the forensic context, experts can acquire adequate understanding of TRD and its evidence base, and put forward arguments against any harsh critique of the area that is uninformed about, misunderstands, or includes omissions and errors in critical conceptualization, state-of-the-art assessment practices, and research methodology and results.