Dissociative Experiences Scale, Brief (DES-B)

Foundational Context

The DES was originally created by Carlson and Putnam (1993) to quantify the frequency of dissociative experiences in both clinical and non-clinical populations. Over time, the DES became the most widely used dissociation screening tool in research and clinical practice.

However, its length (28 items) can be a barrier in high-volume or acute settings. In response, Dalenberg, Carlson, and McDunn (2017) developed the DES-B, selecting eight items that best captured the core structure of dissociation while preserving the psychometric strengths of the full scale. The DES-B provides a practical, validated alternative for clinicians who need rapid triage without sacrificing accuracy.

What the Assessment Measures

The DES-B evaluates the frequency of dissociative experiences across several key domains:

The assessment measures:

• Depersonalization — feeling detached from one’s body or sense of self
• Derealization — experiences of unreality or detachment from surroundings
• Amnesia and memory disruptions — lapses in memory, blackouts, or missing time
• Absorption and imaginative involvement — becoming fully lost in internal experience
• Identity disruptions — transient shifts in sense of self or internal “parts” awareness

These domains reflect dissociation as it commonly presents in trauma-related conditions, stress responses, and complex clinical presentations.

Interpretation Guidelines

The DES-B produces a single score ranging from 0 to 100, representing the average frequency of dissociative experiences.

Validated Interpretation (Dalenberg et al., 2017):

• Scores ≥30 indicate clinically significant dissociation warranting further assessment.
• Scores <30 suggest lower frequency dissociation, though meaningful symptoms may still be present.

Interpretation Notes:

• The DES-B is a screener, not a diagnostic tool.
• Elevated scores do not confirm dissociative disorders but highlight the need for structured evaluation (e.g., SCID-D, MID, expert trauma interview).
• Scores can fluctuate with stress, trauma reminders, sleep disturbance, or emotional overwhelm.
• Some individuals normalize dissociative experiences and may under-report frequency.
• Cultural and contextual factors shape how dissociation is understood and described.

Use scores descriptively and always integrate them with clinical interview findings.

Psychometric Properties

Reliability

• Strong internal consistency, comparable to the original DES
• Brief format retains a high proportion of shared variance with the full scale
• Reliable across trauma-exposed and general-population samples

Validity

• Strong convergent validity with the DES and trauma-related measures
• Good discriminant validity, differentiating between clinical and non-clinical dissociation
• Preliminary evidence supports its utility as a rapid dissociation screener (Dalenberg et al., 2017)

Administration Considerations

• Very brief and well-suited for intake processes, acute care, and trauma-focused therapy contexts
• Individuals should complete the measure when calm enough to reflect on typical experience
• Clinician support may be needed for people with high dissociation during assessment
• Best introduced with non-stigmatizing, trauma-informed framing to promote accurate self-report
• Suitable for repeated measurement to track dissociation patterns over time

Limitations

• Not a diagnostic tool
• Self-report may be limited by insight, shame, normalization of symptoms, or emotional numbing
• Items capture frequency, not intensity or functional impairment
• Cutoff (≥30) is a screening threshold only—not a clinical severity band
• May be less sensitive for complex dissociation requiring more detailed instruments (e.g., MID, SCID-D)