The prevalence of dissociation and Dissociative Disorders, and trauma and parent-child dynamics as etiological factors: implications for the validity of the Trauma Model and Fantasy Model of dissociation

Chapter Two: The prevalence and antecedents of Dissociative Disorders (DDs) and dissociative experiences in college populations: a meta-analysis of 98 studies provides benchmarks for understanding and interpreting prevalence rates of DD and dissociation in a college populations, as well as reviewing research on antecedents to establish the evidence base for both the Trauma Model and Fantasy Model of dissociation.

This main meta-analysis includes two CMA data files:
1. The first contains secondary data from 12 studies that provide the prevalence rates for at least one of the DDs with the diagnosis based on a structured clinical interview (the SCID-D, the mini SCID-D and the DDIS)
2. The second contains secondary data from 92 studies measuring dissociation with the Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) that report the DES mean, or components thereof, i.e. the mean for the pathological taxon (DES-T), the subscales of absorption, depersonalization or amnesia; or the percentage of pathological dissociators in the sample.

Chapter Three: Parent-child dynamics and experiences of maltreatment during childhood that predict dissociation in a college population contains primary research that enables the influence of parent-child dynamics, including attachment, to be empirically tested, to see if these alongside trauma exposure can predict dissociation in adulthood in a non-clinical sample; and to determine whether these findings provide support for the Trauma Model or Fantasy Model of dissociation.

The data set for chapter three is derived from primary data collection from 313 internal and external students and academic staff from the University of New England using demographic data and data from the following four instruments:
- A 60 question version of the Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation (MID; Dell, 2006)
- The Parent-Child Dynamics Questionnaire designed by the PhD student
- A revised version of the Betrayal Trauma Index (BTI; Freyd, Deprince, & Zurbriggen, 2001)
- Relationship Questionnaire – Clinical Version (RQ-CV; Holmes and Lyons-Ruth, 2006)

Chapter Four What kinds of parent-child dynamics and experiences of maltreatment during childhood best predict dissociation and Dissociative Disorders in Australian college students, outpatients and inpatients? builds upon the findings of chapter three and uses the same set of instruments to see if the relationships found in a university population are replicated in a clinical population; and to determine whether these findings provide support for the Trauma Model or Fantasy Model of dissociation.

The data set for Chapter 4 is derived from primary data collection from three university groups (those with normal, elevated, and clinical levels of dissociation) and a group of 13 inpatients (Belmont Private Hospital, Brisbane) and 21 outpatients (Australia wide) diagnosed with a Dissociative Disorder.

第二章：解离障碍（Dissociative Disorders, DDs）与解离体验在大学生群体中的流行率及前因：基于98项研究的元分析（meta-analysis）。本章节为理解与解读大学生群体中解离障碍及解离体验的流行率提供基准，并综述相关前因研究，为解离的创伤模型（Trauma Model）与幻想模型（Fantasy Model）构建证据基础。

本项元分析包含两份CMA数据文件：
1. 第一份收录12项研究的二手数据，这些研究基于结构化临床访谈（structured clinical interview）工具（包括SCID-D、迷你版SCID-D与DDIS）作出诊断，报告了至少一种解离障碍的流行率；
2. 第二份收录92项研究的二手数据，这些研究使用解离体验量表（Dissociative Experiences Scale, DES）测评解离体验，报告了DES均值或其分量表得分：包括病理性解离维度（DES-T）均值、分离性沉浸感、人格解体或遗忘症子量表得分，或样本中病理性解离者的占比。

第三章：预测大学生群体解离症状的亲子互动模式与童年期虐待经历。本章节包含原创研究，可实证检验亲子互动模式（包括依恋关系）的影响，探究这些因素与创伤暴露能否共同预测非临床样本成年个体的解离症状，并验证上述研究结果是否支持解离的创伤模型或幻想模型。

第三章的数据集源自新英格兰大学（University of New England）313名校内外学生与教职员工的原创数据采集，所用数据包括人口统计学资料与以下四类测评工具所得数据：
- 60题版多维解离量表（Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation, MID; Dell, 2006）
- 该博士生自主编制的亲子互动模式问卷
- 修订版背叛创伤量表（Betrayal Trauma Index, BTI; Freyd, Deprince, & Zurbriggen, 2001）
- 关系问卷-临床版（Relationship Questionnaire – Clinical Version, RQ-CV; Holmes and Lyons-Ruth, 2006）

第四章：何种亲子互动模式与童年期虐待经历可最佳预测澳大利亚大学生、门诊患者与住院患者的解离症状及解离障碍？本章节基于第三章的研究结论，使用相同的测评工具组，验证在大学生群体中发现的关联是否可在临床群体中重复，并验证上述研究结果是否支持解离的创伤模型或幻想模型。

第四章的数据集源自三类大学生群体（解离水平处于正常、升高与临床范围的个体），以及13名来自布里斯班贝尔蒙特私立医院的住院患者与21名全澳范围内的门诊患者（均确诊为解离障碍）。