Abstract

[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported online in Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice on Jun 02 2025 (see record 2026-24321-001).

In the article “Maladaptive Daydreaming: Proposed Diagnostic Criteria and Their Assessment With a Structured Clinical Interview” (Somer, Soffer-Dudek, Ross, & Halpern, 2017) published in this journal, a cutoff of 50 was suggested for the 16-item English version of the Maladaptive Daydreaming Scale. This figure was erroneous due to the survey platform’s automatic change in scaling, which was overlooked by the authors.

The correct figure for the optimal cutoff was supposed to be 40. The latter figure retains zero false positives and minimizes false negatives. Individuals who score above 40 on the Maladaptive Daydreaming Scale are likely to suffer from maladaptive daydreaming, and studies are encouraged to use that correct cutoff.] Daydreaming, a common mental activity, can be excessive and accompanied by distress and impaired functioning in daily life.

Although currently not formally identified by diagnostic manuals, daydreaming disorder (maladaptive daydreaming [MD]) is a clinically well-defined phenomenon. However, research is lacking regarding the diagnostic reliability of MD. Our aims were (a) to develop diagnostic criteria and a structured interview for MD, (b) to examine the reliability of this measure for distinguishing individuals with and without MD, and (c) to establish an optimal cutoff score for identifying clinical-level MD using an existing self-report measure. Thirty-one individuals who met screening criteria for MD and 31 matched controls completed the self-report measure and participated in 2 structured clinical interviews. Each participant was interviewed independently by 2 clinicians blind to the participant’s group membership. Cohen’s kappa values for the agreement rate between each interviewer and the screening criterion, and between the 2 interviewers, ranged from good to excellent (κ = .63–.84). A cutoff score of 50 on the self-report measure yielded nearly perfect sensitivity and specificity and good-to-excellent agreement between the self-report measure and the interview (κ = .68–.81). Our interviews were conducted over the Internet, rather than in person; results might have been influenced by self-selection; and interviewing wider samples is warranted.

We found that MD can be diagnosed reliably using a structured interview developed for that purpose. The new diagnostic interview showed excellent agreement with a self-report measure for the disorder. Additionally, we identified a useful cutoff score for future self-report research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)

Further Information

Unfortunately, the full version of this paper isn’t available for free. You might find more details online if you’re interested.

If you’d like to learn more, the author has kindly given permission for his contact details to be shared. 

Prof. Eli Somer: eli.somer@me.com 

Prof. Nirit Soffer-Dudek: soffern@bgu.ac.il