User talk:Vanished user 54564fd56f45f4dsa5f4sf5/sandbox

Looking at the first sentence: "The diagnosis has been criticized as proponents of the iatrogenic or sociocognitive hypothesis believe it as a culture-bound and often iatrogenic condition which they think is in decline."

References used:

[12] Piper and Merkey (2004) This is too old to use for this article, as we have agreed in the past to use information that is current - 5 years old or less as suggested by Doc James. [33] Piper and Mersky - part II of same article listed above. (2004) Again, this is too old

[27] Boysen (2011) Boysen does not say this in his abstract or conclusion, and really the study has nothing to do with the statement made above.

Boysen looked at published studies in the 1980's and 1990's. Boysen's exact words: "Nearly all of the research that does exist on childhood DID is from the 1980s and 1990s and does not resolve the ongoing controversies surrounding the disorder."

Boysen's actual conclusion: "Despite continuing research on the related concepts of trauma and dissociation, childhood DID itself appears to be an extremely rare phenomenon that few researchers have studied in depth. Nearly all of the research that does exist on childhood DID is from the 1980s and 1990s and does not resolve the ongoing controversies surrounding the disorder." Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 14:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other researchers disagree and argue that the condition is real and its inclusion in the DSM is supported by reliable and convergent evidence. [4] That a large proportion of cases are diagnosed by specific clinicians suggests to some that either those clinicians are indeed responsible for the iatrogenic creation of alters or there is a high rate of false positives due to subjective diagnostic criteria, though proponents of the traumagenic hypothesis believe there are valid and objective diagnostic criteria to identify individuals with DID.[2] Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 14:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)