Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation (MID): Uses and Limitations
Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 9, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Research cluster: Dissociation & Dissociative Disorders · Written by Artificial Sapiens
The Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation (MID) is a detailed self-report assessment instrument used by trained clinicians and researchers to characterize dissociative experiences. Its original 218-item format was developed by psychologist Paul F. Dell to examine different features of pathological dissociation and to help organize diagnostic evaluation when symptoms involving memory, identity, awareness, perception, and trauma-related distress overlap. The MID can provide valuable clinical information, but its numerical outputs and diagnostic suggestions require a careful interview and independent clinical judgment. Dell's original validation study describes the instrument's rationale and initial psychometric findings.
This guide explains what the MID measures, who may benefit from an assessment, how administration and scoring work, what research supports its use, and where the boundaries of its conclusions lie. It also distinguishes the original MID from the newer MID-60, compares the instrument with shorter questionnaires and diagnostic interviews, and answers common questions about online access, scores, dissociative identity disorder (DID), and treatment. Evidence was reviewed October 9, 2026. For a related clinical perspective, see How Are Dissociative Disorders Diagnosed? Interviews and Differential Diagnosis.
What is the Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation?
The MID is a multidimensional questionnaire designed to collect a structured description of experiences that may be difficult to disclose spontaneously. Examples include feeling detached from oneself or surroundings, unexpected gaps in recollection, experiences of agency or identity discontinuity, and other unusual experiences of consciousness and behavior. A person's endorsement of an item records an experience as they understand it; it does not establish its mechanism, origin, or diagnostic significance.
The original MID contains 218 questions. In foundational descriptions, 168 are dissociation-related items and 50 contribute to response-validity assessment; the instrument evaluates 14 broad facets and 23 dissociative symptom scales. These are dimensions within an assessment model, not 23 separate disorders. Dell (2006) provides the original design, while the Hebrew MID validation study describes its dissociation and validity item structure. The MID's official materials describe adult and adapted adolescent versions and professional interpretation resources.
What does the MID measure?
A multidimensional assessment matters because dissociation is heterogeneous. Two people reporting the same overall severity may differ substantially in whether they experience perceptual detachment, autobiographical memory gaps, discontinuity of identity, or episodes of altered awareness. The MID is intended to make those patterns visible for follow-up questioning. The 2026 umbrella review of dissociation research documents persistent disagreements about whether dissociation is best represented by one overarching dimension or several related dimensions.
Depersonalization and derealization
Depersonalization describes experiences of detachment from one's own thoughts, body, emotions, or sense of self; derealization describes a sense that surroundings seem unreal, distant, dreamlike, or altered. Such experiences can occur transiently during stress, anxiety, sleep disruption, substance exposure, or other circumstances. Persistent distress and functional impairment require assessment, and the symptom alone does not identify depersonalization-derealization disorder. The American Psychiatric Association overview describes these dissociative experiences in their diagnostic context.
Memory discontinuity and dissociative amnesia
The questionnaire examines unusual difficulties recalling events or actions and perceived gaps in continuity. Memory complaints demand particular care: ordinary distraction, inadequate encoding, sleep loss, intoxication, medication effects, neurological illness, and other conditions may also create gaps or uncertainty. An elevated memory-related MID profile is a reason to clarify timing, severity, corroborating observations, and medical explanations. It is never proof that a specific autobiographical event occurred or that a particular experience was forgotten because of trauma.
Identity-related experiences and intrusions
Some items address experiences of discontinuity in self-experience, apparently autonomous thoughts or actions, or felt changes in agency. These reports can be relevant when a specialist evaluates DID or other dissociative presentations. Similar language may, however, describe internal dialogue, intrusive thoughts, trauma responses, culturally patterned experiences, psychotic symptoms, or metaphorical descriptions. Clinicians must establish what actually happens rather than treating a questionnaire phrase as literal evidence of an independent identity state.
Validity and response patterns
The MID incorporates measures intended to help a qualified interpreter notice response patterns that may complicate interpretation. Such scales can prompt questions about inconsistent responses, unusual endorsement, misunderstanding, or other factors influencing reports. They cannot reveal a respondent's intent, establish deliberate deception, or reliably decide whether a symptom is genuine on their own. Language comprehension, interpretation of examples, response style, cultural expectations, and situational distress also matter. A technically generated report is an interpretive aid, not a forensic truth detector.
Who is the MID designed for?
The instrument was developed primarily for clinical and research contexts in which complex dissociative symptoms warrant thorough assessment. A clinician may consider it when someone reports persistent memory discontinuity, recurrent depersonalization or derealization, significant dissociation associated with other mental health concerns, or identity-related experiences that have not been adequately clarified by routine questionnaires. It may be useful for organizing a later structured interview and for monitoring symptom descriptions when appropriate.
The MID was originally investigated in clinically relevant populations, including people reporting overlapping dissociative, trauma-related, and borderline-personality features. This original clinical focus does not authorize using it to screen all people indiscriminately or to infer population prevalence from a specialty clinic. Whether it is appropriate depends on the referral question, respondent burden, accessibility, clinical setting, and the existence of a qualified interpreter. For routine, lower-intensity assessment, a briefer instrument may be more proportionate.
How is the MID administered and scored?
The standard MID is completed by the respondent, usually with guidance or coordination from a clinician or research team. The official instrument site describes it as a clinician-administered, client self-report measure, meaning a clinician oversees its use while the client answers the questionnaire. People can complete authorized materials outside an office in some telehealth workflows, but this does not transform the measure into a public self-diagnostic test. The developer's official page provides questionnaire formats and instructions.
Clinicians enter the responses into a specialized MID Analysis tool, which generates summaries, scales, and interpretive reports. The official site says the analytical workbook and interpretive manual are restricted to verified professionals and researchers; they are not intended to be handed to clients for unsupervised scoring. Appropriate interpretation considers missing responses, the particular version and language used, the reliability of the respondent's understanding, response-validity information, and the question that motivated testing.
Because 218 items require sustained attention, the MID can be tiring or emotionally demanding. The format can be unsuitable during acute distress, intoxication, severe concentration difficulties, or a medical emergency. Clinicians should explain the purpose beforehand, allow breaks when appropriate, discuss potentially upsetting content, and agree on how results will be interpreted. Patients can ask what the instrument adds to the assessment and whether a shorter or interview-based approach could answer the same question.
What does a MID score mean?
A MID result summarizes endorsed experiences within a particular scoring and interpretive framework. A high total or scale score may indicate clinically important symptoms worthy of further evaluation. A lower score does not automatically exclude a dissociative disorder, especially if comprehension, avoidance, underreporting, incomplete responses, state changes, or an atypical presentation interfere with measurement. The significance of any score depends on the studied population, instrument version, available comparison data, and the intended clinical decision.
Some MID outputs use diagnostic categories or estimated diagnostic likelihoods. These are model-generated classifications based on patterns of answers and the instrument's underlying assumptions. They are not the same as the probability that a particular individual has a disorder after comprehensive evaluation. The original validation study reported promising psychometric properties, but performance estimates obtained in selected clinical samples cannot be copied directly to community populations, adolescents, or different languages. Dell (2006) should be read alongside the 2025 systematic review of dissociation measures.
There is no defensible universal online rule such as 'this MID number means you have DID.' A diagnostic threshold that appears in a study has meaning only with the study's reference standard, case mix, prevalence, and statistical uncertainty. The safest explanation of an elevated result is that it identifies topics to investigate through a clinical assessment. It neither confirms DID nor establishes why a symptom developed.
Can the MID diagnose dissociative identity disorder?
The MID was designed to inform the differential assessment of dissociative disorders and includes symptom patterns relevant to DID. Its original author used diagnosis-oriented language to describe the instrument. Modern clinical practice must distinguish an instrument's diagnostic algorithm from an independently established diagnosis. DID assessment requires evaluation of identity disruption, memory discontinuity, distress or impairment, cultural context, and alternative explanations in the applicable diagnostic system. American Psychiatric Association clinical information explains the diagnostic framework.
A diagnosis should be made by a qualified professional after an interview, review of symptom history and impact, and appropriate investigation of alternatives. Measures such as the MID can make overlooked symptoms more discussable, especially when the person struggles to explain experiences. They do not adjudicate competing etiological models of DID, confirm that a patient has particular 'alters,' or make an online self-description sufficient for a diagnosis.
DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 are distinct diagnostic frameworks. DSM-5-TR includes DID, dissociative amnesia, depersonalization/derealization disorder, other specified dissociative disorder (OSDD), and unspecified dissociative disorder. ICD-11 explicitly recognizes DID and partial DID along with additional specified categories and other dissociative conditions. Their category boundaries and criteria should be evaluated on their own terms. The WHO ICD-11 clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements provide the international clinical framework.
An important technical limitation is that the full MID's diagnostic algorithm does not directly classify every DSM-5-TR dissociative disorder. The 2026 MID-60 validation paper notes that the full MID generates diagnostic impressions for DID, OSDD, PTSD, and unspecified dissociative disorder, but its algorithm does not assess dissociative amnesia or depersonalization/derealization disorder as defined in DSM-5-TR. Questions about amnesia and detachment in the inventory must therefore be distinguished from an algorithmically supported diagnosis of those conditions. MID-60 profile classifications also require independent validation against structured diagnostic interviews. See Kate et al. (2026).
What does the research say about reliability and validity?
Original development and foundational evidence
Dell's 2006 paper reported evidence for internal consistency, stability over time, convergent and discriminant validity, and a multidimensional symptom structure. It also found that a single-factor representation did not adequately describe all of the instrument's clinical scales, even though another set of factor scales showed a different structural result. These are meaningful but construct-specific findings: an encouraging reliability coefficient cannot by itself show that a measure reliably diagnoses a disorder across settings. Original MID development and validation.
Independent reviews of measurement quality
A major 2025 systematic review using measurement-quality criteria examined 44 dissociation measures and 14 adapted versions. Its broad conclusion was that further high-quality validation is needed across the field; the Dissociative Experiences Scale had the strongest support among measures of trait dissociation within that review. This should not be misread as proof that the DES-II is best for every clinical question, or that the MID has no value. The instruments have different scopes, costs, and intended uses. The review reinforces the importance of purpose-specific validation.
The 2026 umbrella review synthesized dozens of prior evidence reviews encompassing thousands of primary studies. It found persistent conceptual and measurement heterogeneity, including uncertainty about dimensional structure and limited attention to cultural and contextual factors. These concerns are especially relevant when a complex scale is used to claim a sharp diagnostic boundary. A detailed questionnaire can improve description without eliminating ambiguity from the construct it measures.
Cross-cultural validation and external replication
The 2005 Hebrew MID study and a 2026 Italian clinical validation study provide additional evidence beyond the original English development sample. In the Italian study, 100 outpatient participants completed an assessment incorporating interviews and questionnaires. The investigators reported encouraging reliability and several validity indicators, while finding that temporal stability varied across subscales and that sampling constrained some tests of discrimination. A single outpatient validation cannot establish international equivalence of every translation or every diagnostic cutoff.
Translation is a psychometric process, not simply replacing words. Cultural meanings of unusual experiences, clinician-client language mismatches, different response conventions, and local diagnostic practice can change how items function. The official MID resources distinguish available translations from those that have undergone research validation. Even where an adaptation has promising evidence, clinicians should verify the exact version and population studied rather than assuming that every file labeled MID performs identically.
How does MID-60 differ from the original 218-item MID?
The MID-60 is a shorter, related 60-item measure and must be identified separately from the full MID. In a 2026 validation study, Kate and colleagues examined 13,177 de-identified assessments from an Australian online clinical psychometrics platform. The study supported an 11-factor structure, reported high internal consistency and short-interval stability, and found an association with DES-II scores. These results support clinical use for screening, formulation, and monitoring symptoms in studied populations; they do not automatically validate every interpretive claim made for the full 218-item MID.
The shorter format can reduce respondent burden and may be useful for repeated measurement. Yet the validation was based on platform users in care, and different analyses used subsets determined by available measures. Associations with another questionnaire or disability measure do not substitute for a representative, blinded diagnostic interview across all relevant groups. A treatment-associated decline in scores also does not prove that a specific intervention caused improvement. Clinicians should avoid conflating MID-60 data with validation of MID-218 diagnostic algorithms.
MID vs DES-II, SCID-D, and other dissociation assessments
MID compared with the Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES-II)
The DES-II is a shorter, widely used self-report measure of dissociative experiences. The MID provides more granular symptom reporting and is often considered when a broad screen leaves clinically important questions unresolved. Greater detail comes with more administration time and interpretive complexity. The 2025 measures review evaluated the psychometric evidence across instruments; it supports choosing a measure on the basis of the specific decision, rather than equating questionnaire length with diagnostic superiority.
MID compared with the SCID-D structured interview
The SCID-D is a clinician-administered structured diagnostic interview, a different form of evidence from self-report scale scoring. A 2021 meta-analysis of SCID-D studies found that trained interview assessment can distinguish dissociative from nondissociative presentations in the research samples examined. It does not imply that every clinician interview is infallible. In complex cases, a structured interview can clarify the meaning and context of MID endorsements, contradictory accounts, and differential explanations.
MID compared with targeted and momentary measures
The Cambridge Depersonalization Scale focuses on depersonalization-related experience; other questionnaires and clinician ratings address particular symptoms, severity, or time frames. Measures of trait tendency should also be distinguished from momentary state dissociation. A person seeking help for a recent episode of derealization may need a medical and clinical history more urgently than a 218-item questionnaire. The systematic review of existing measures describes how purpose, population, and measurement properties vary considerably.
What are the MID's main limitations?
Self-report and interpretation
All self-report measures rely on a respondent's understanding, recall, vocabulary, response context, and willingness to answer. Some experiences are difficult to describe; different people may use the same words for different phenomena. Repeated questionnaires cannot remove the need to ask clarifying questions. Distress, expectancy, coaching, online diagnostic narratives, suggestion, and misunderstanding can affect responses in either direction. Scale endorsements also cannot establish whether a reported experience was involuntary, recurrent, culturally sanctioned, or functionally impairing.
Sampling, generalizability, and diagnostic accuracy
Research in specialist, trauma-focused, or treatment-seeking samples can overrepresent complex symptoms. Predictive values depend on how common a condition is in the tested population and on the quality of the diagnostic reference. Even a measure that differentiates groups reasonably well in a selected sample can generate misleading positive interpretations in a broad population. The 2025 psychometrics review and 2026 conceptual umbrella review support caution about generalization across settings and populations.
Complexity and respondent burden
The MID's comprehensiveness makes it attractive for detailed clinical formulation but less practical as a routine questionnaire for everyone. Fatigue, accessibility needs, literacy differences, discomfort with intimate questions, and changes in attention may affect both completion and data quality. Clinicians should explain how results are stored and shared, whether item-level details become part of the medical record, and what alternatives exist. Informed participation is particularly important when the assessment includes sensitive material.
Instrument theory and competing explanations
The MID organizes symptoms through a particular theoretical and phenomenological model. Researchers disagree about the origins and interpretation of some dissociative presentations, including DID. The observed presence of symptoms is clinically important regardless of which explanatory model eventually proves most accurate. However, endorsement patterns alone cannot establish a specific causal story about trauma, identity-state mechanisms, suggestibility, or the accuracy of autobiographical memories. The 2026 umbrella synthesis documents continuing measurement debates.
Clinical differential diagnosis: what else may resemble dissociation?
A clinician reviewing MID findings should establish whether reported experiences are better explained by panic and severe anxiety, psychotic symptoms, sleep disorders, seizures, head injury, substance intoxication or withdrawal, medication effects, migraine, neurodevelopmental differences, depression, or other conditions. Overlap can occur, and co-occurring conditions may require simultaneous care. The relevant questions are what happened, under what circumstances, for how long, and with what impairment—not merely whether a questionnaire item was endorsed. WHO diagnostic guidance places symptoms within broader clinical evaluation.
For example, derealization during a panic attack may accompany intense autonomic arousal; psychotic experiences may involve changes in reality testing that differ from many depersonalization experiences; ADHD-related distraction usually calls for a developmental and executive-function history; and functional neurological symptoms require their own positive clinical assessment. Dissociative amnesia, ordinary forgetfulness, and neurological amnesia should not be merged. A specialist uses history, examination, and appropriate investigations to distinguish these possibilities, including urgent medical evaluation when symptoms begin suddenly or involve altered consciousness.
Does an elevated MID score prove childhood trauma or recovered memories?
No. Statistical associations between certain dissociation measures and reported adversity do not verify any individual's trauma history. The original MID study reported incremental statistical prediction of scores on a trauma-experiences questionnaire; those outcomes were themselves based on self-report, not independent confirmation of past events. The test cannot date a memory, identify an offender, or establish an unremembered event as historical fact. Dell's original study must be interpreted within that measurement design.
Human autobiographical memory is reconstructive and can be influenced by suggestions and expectations. Research on recovered memories, forgetting, and therapeutic suggestion remains contested in important respects, and clinicians should neither dismiss a person's distress nor treat a newly emerging memory as independently corroborated evidence. Reviews by Engelhard and colleagues and Otgaar and colleagues discuss alternative explanations and risks in memory-related claims. Evidence-based assessment avoids techniques designed to produce a predetermined narrative.
Use with adolescents and in different languages
The MID developer's site offers an adolescent wording adaptation of the full questionnaire and says that it uses the same analysis system as the adult version. Availability is not equivalent to independent validation for every pediatric age group. Developmental changes, reading comprehension, family and school context, safeguarding, and the distinction between imagination and clinically significant disruption require qualified age-appropriate evaluation. An adult-derived algorithm should not be assumed to perform identically among children and teens.
The developer provides numerous non-English questionnaires but explicitly differentiates translations that have been research-validated from those offered for convenience. Clinicians must check the version, language, local population, and available validation evidence. Translation equivalence, test-retest performance, and diagnostic thresholds should be supported for the actual intended use. An individual who is more comfortable in a different language may need an appropriately validated assessment or a specialist interview.
How MID findings should influence clinical care
Useful interpretation turns test responses into focused questions and a collaborative formulation. A clinician may explore the timing of memory gaps, the relationship of detachment to stress or sleep, safety in daily activities, emotional regulation, personal strengths, treatment priorities, and co-occurring conditions. Results can guide decisions about further interviews or referrals. The MID itself is an assessment instrument, not a treatment, and no particular score entails a required therapy or medication.
When a dissociative disorder is established, treatment planning considers distress, functional problems, safety, resources, and the person's preferences. Specialist recommendations, such as the ISSTD adult DID guidelines, describe a clinical approach, but specialist consensus should be distinguished from definitive randomized evidence for every intervention. Assessment should remain open to revising an initial formulation as history or clinical information changes.
Practical advice for patients considering the MID
Ask the clinician what decision the questionnaire will help with, why the full MID rather than a shorter measure is appropriate, what training is required to interpret it, and whether a clinical interview is included. You can also ask about confidentiality, who will see item-level responses, how uncertainties will be explained, and whether difficult questions can be discussed in a supported setting. A responsible assessment provides a written or verbal explanation of what results suggest and what remains unknown.
If a report uses unfamiliar diagnostic terms, request clarification rather than assuming the label is final. A second opinion may be appropriate when the conclusion rests mainly on questionnaire scoring, conflicts with the broader clinical history, or overlooks a medical condition. If you have new blackouts, seizures, confusion, serious injury, sudden neurological symptoms, or immediate risk of harm, seek urgent medical attention instead of waiting for a dissociation questionnaire.
Frequently asked questions
Is the Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation a legitimate psychological assessment?
It is a published, research-studied instrument with documented psychometric evidence, developed for qualified professional use. Its evidential strengths and remaining limitations depend on the population and intended interpretation. Scientific recognition of a measure does not mean that its results alone establish a psychiatric diagnosis. See Dell (2006) and the 2025 systematic review.
Can I take the MID online by myself?
Questionnaire files are accessible through the official MID website, but the scoring and interpretation system is designed for verified clinicians and researchers. Independently answering items can prompt useful questions about your experiences, yet self-generated labels or third-party scoring sites are not substitutes for assessment. Sharing concerns with a qualified professional is more informative than chasing a single cutoff.
How long does the MID take?
The full 218-item format requires substantially more time than shorter scales, and the total depends on reading speed, concentration, need for breaks, and whether clarification is necessary. A clinician should explain the expected commitment based on the actual version and setting. Completion time is not a measure of severity or honesty.
What does a high MID score mean?
It indicates a pattern of endorsed experiences that may deserve further exploration. The interpretation requires the specific scale, version, context, response validity, and corroborating clinical information. It should not be interpreted as a personal percentage chance of DID, proof of trauma, or a substitute for diagnostic evaluation.
Can the MID distinguish DID from OSDD or partial DID?
Its profiles can help a specialist formulate questions about different dissociative presentations, but classification requires applying the relevant DSM-5-TR or ICD-11 requirements in a clinical interview. OSDD is a DSM category, while partial DID is specifically recognized in ICD-11; their labels should not be treated as interchangeable. WHO ICD-11 guidance explains the international framework.
Is the MID more accurate than the DES-II?
It assesses more kinds of experiences in greater detail, and some studies report additional information for selected clinical purposes. That does not establish global superiority across all populations or diagnostic decisions. The 2025 systematic review favored the DES for psychometric support among trait dissociation measures, while recognizing that different instruments answer different questions.
Are MID and MID-60 the same test?
No. The full MID has 218 items; MID-60 is a shorter related measure with its own research base and intended applications. The 2026 MID-60 validation paper reports promising findings for clinical screening and monitoring, but those data should not be presented as if they were direct validation of every full-MID scale and algorithm.
Can the MID prove that a memory or identity experience is real?
The questionnaire can document that a person reports an experience. It cannot establish the independent historical accuracy of a memory, the underlying cause of a symptom, or the metaphysical status of an identity experience. Clinicians should respond compassionately to what the person is experiencing while evaluating each claim with appropriate evidence.
Can the MID be used to track treatment progress?
Repeated symptom measurement can sometimes support treatment planning when the same validated measure and conditions are used consistently. The MID-60 validation study examined repeated administrations, but a change in score is not sufficient to attribute an outcome to treatment or to conclude that someone no longer needs care. Clinical functioning and the person's own priorities matter.
When should someone seek a professional assessment?
Assessment is appropriate when recurrent dissociative experiences cause distress, safety concerns, memory discontinuity, work or relationship difficulties, or uncertainty about other mental or medical conditions. Seek prompt medical evaluation for new episodes of loss of awareness, falls, seizures, sudden confusion, or neurological symptoms. A questionnaire can be part of a planned evaluation after urgent causes are addressed.
Related Articles
References
American Psychiatric Association. (n.d.). What are dissociative disorders?. Official clinical overview.
Dell, P. F. (2006). The multidimensional inventory of dissociation (MID): A comprehensive measure of pathological dissociation. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 7(2), 77–106. https://doi.org/10.1300/J229v07n02_06
Engelhard, I. M., McNally, R. J., & van Schie, K. (2019). Retrieving and modifying traumatic memories: Recent research relevant to three controversies. Current Directions in Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418807728
Garofalo, C., et al. (2026). The conceptualization and assessment of dissociation: An umbrella review of synthesis studies. Clinical Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2026.102702
International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation. (2011). Guidelines for treating dissociative identity disorder in adults, third revision. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 12(2), 115–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2011.537247
Kate, M.-A., Swinfield, H., Hegarty, D. L., Buchanan, B., & Dorahy, M. J. (2026). Validation of the Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation-60 (MID-60) items in a clinical population. Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911261462453
Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation. (2026). Official MID instrument, scoring and professional resources. Developer resource.
Mychailyszyn, M. P., Brand, B. L., Webermann, A. R., Şar, V., & Draijer, N. (2021). Differentiating dissociative from non-dissociative disorders: A meta-analysis of the SCID-D. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 22(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2020.1760169
Otgaar, H., et al. (2019). The return of the repressed: The persistent and problematic claims of long-forgotten trauma. Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619862306
Scimeca, G., Ardito, M., Fiammetta, M., Madere, J. A., Coy, D. M., & Giacalone, G. (2026). Clinical validation of the Italian Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation (I-MID). Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 27(3), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2026.2641647
Somer, E., & Dell, P. F. (2005). Development of the Hebrew-Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation (H-MID). Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 6(1), 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1300/J229v06n01_03
Wainipitapong, S., Millman, L. S. M., Huang, X., Wieder, L., Terhune, D. B., & Pick, S. (2025). Assessing dissociation: A systematic review and evaluation of existing measures. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 181, 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.11.040
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. WHO. ISBN 978-92-4-007726-3.