The first link is pretty much my impression. This looks like the usual trick of people playing games with definitions (lucid dreams is such and such score on our "LuCiD" scale). The main part of the trick is to measure something that sounds similar to what people actually care about, then draw conclusions about that thing cared about.
By definition a person knows when they are having a lucid dream or not. If you will not trust their self report of that info there is no reason to trust anything else they report about the dream either. This scale is pointless for the purpose of identifying lucid dreaming.
Where is the result: "% of trials that the person reports lucid dreaming"? Perhaps that is in supplementary figure 1 where they show "Nb. of dreams rated as lucid"? But what does it mean to "rate as lucid"?
For this paper I see this is based on the scale:
"Lucidity was assumed when subjects reported elevated ratings (>mean + 2 s.e.) on either or both of the LuCiD scale factors insight and dissociation."
Going back to their earlier paper about creating the LuCiD scale all I find is this:
By definition a person knows when they are having a lucid dream or not. If you will not trust their self report of that info there is no reason to trust anything else they report about the dream either. This scale is pointless for the purpose of identifying lucid dreaming.
Where is the result: "% of trials that the person reports lucid dreaming"? Perhaps that is in supplementary figure 1 where they show "Nb. of dreams rated as lucid"? But what does it mean to "rate as lucid"?
For this paper I see this is based on the scale:
"Lucidity was assumed when subjects reported elevated ratings (>mean + 2 s.e.) on either or both of the LuCiD scale factors insight and dissociation."
Going back to their earlier paper about creating the LuCiD scale all I find is this:
"Dreams were treated as lucid dreams if they were rated as such by the participants." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23220345