Jimmy Savile scandal: judge's review contacted by more than 425 people, multiple personality disorder (MPD) valid and caused by extreme child abuse

- Jimmy Savile scandal: judge's review contacted by more than 425 people
- Professional skepticism of multiple personality disorder.
- Mental health professionals' skepticism about multiple personality disorder.
- Psychiatrists’ Attitudes Toward Dissociative Disorders Diagnoses

"Data from 425 respondents indicated that the majority of psychologists believed multiple personality disorder (MPD) to be a valid but rare clinical diagnosis. Respondents cited extreme child abuse as the foremost cause of MPD."

Jimmy Savile scandal: judge's review contacted by more than 425 people
Dame Janet Smith's investigation into sexual abuse at the BBC over five decades highlights scale of allegations it covers      Josh Halliday      guardian.co.uk, Monday 18 February 2013

The judge-led investigation into sexual abuse at the BBC in the Jimmy Savile era has been contacted by more than 425 people and carried out 60 in-person interviews with witnesses.

The Dame Janet Smith review on Monday said it had conducted approximately 250 conversations with witnesses since its inquiry began in December.
About 60 interviews face-to-face interviews have taken place with witnesses in London and further meetings are planned over the coming weeks, the inquiry said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/feb/18/jimmy-savile-scandal-judge-review 



Professional skepticism of multiple personality disorder.
By Cormier, Jane F.; Thelen, Mark H.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol 29(2), Apr 1998, 163-167.
Abstract
If you saw a patient who appeared to have more than one personality, what diagnosis would you make? And how would you vary your clinical approach? Data from 425 respondents indicated that the majority of psychologists believed multiple personality disorder (MPD) to be a valid but rare clinical diagnosis. Respondents cited extreme child abuse as the foremost cause of MPD. Approximately one-half of all respondents believed that they had encountered a client with MPD, whereas less than one-third believed that they had encountered a client who feigned MPD. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&uid=1998-00832-013



Mental health professionals' skepticism about multiple personality disorder.
By Hayes, Jeffrey A.; Mitchell, Jeffrey C.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol 25(4), Nov 1994, 410-415.
Abstract
Three studies were conducted to investigate the nature of mental health professionals' skepticism regarding multiple personality disorder (MPD). An initial pilot study was conducted to develop a psychometrically sound survey instrument. In Study 2, the results of a national survey of 207 mental health professionals supported the hypothesis that skepticism and knowledge about MPD are inversely related, r=–.33, p < .01, although the strength of this relationship varied among professions. Moderate to extreme skepticism was expressed by 24% of the sample. Results from Study 3 supported the hypotheses that MPD is diagnosed with less accuracy than is schizophrenia and that misdiagnosis of MPD is predicted by skepticism about MPD. Findings are related to literature pertaining to mental health professionals' skepticism about MPD and consequential effects on treatment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&uid=1995-11275-001 



Letter to the Editor   |   July 01, 2000
Psychiatrists’ Attitudes Toward Dissociative Disorders Diagnoses
A. STEVEN FRANKEL , PH.D., J.D.; SHERRY A. SPAN , M.A.
Am J Psychiatry 2000;157:1179-1179. 10.1176/appi.ajp.157.7.1179
In our opinion, the article by Harrison G. Pope, Jr., M.D., et al. (1) failed to comport with the level of scholarship usually required for publication in scientific journals. The authors failed to mention two methodologically sound studies (2, 3) showing that favorable attitudes toward dissociative identity disorder are positively correlated with knowledge about the disorder (from reading texts, attending conferences about dissociative identity disorder, etc.). Furthermore, that they did not assess attitudes toward other DSM-IV disorders may have itself introduced bias. This omission also failed to provide a baseline of skepticism from which attitudes toward all disorders might be assessed.

In addition, the authors’ methodological and statistical procedures were flawed. Random sampling cannot be achieved by a "prescribed formula." The variables assessed did not appear driven by theory. Thus, while their logistic regression appeared sophisticated, the variables it analyzed were not. The most striking problem concerned their interpretation of the data. They reported that "[the disorders] should be included [in DSM-IV] only with reservations" as the modal response. Nevertheless, a sign test shows no significant differences between this group and the group that opted for inclusion without reservations. Thus, the more reasonable interpretation is that the overwhelming majority of responders indicated acceptance—with or without reservations.
http://journals.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=174234