The author has been involved in the development of two conflicting theoretical models of trauma-related dissociation which has given rise to conceptual confusion—the more so because both models originally included the term ‘levels of dissociation.’ In one model, stemming from a so-called broad conceptualization, these ‘levels’ refer to a range of trauma-related phenomena which may or may not be dissociative in nature. The other model, developed within the so-called narrow understanding of dissociation, distinguishes ‘levels’ in terms of complexity of dissociation of the personality. This paper describes and discusses the origins of the two models, their contents, their use of the terms ‘levels’ and ‘dissociation,’ and their differences and similarities. Arguments are given why, in both models, the term ‘levels’ (of dissociation) was ill-chosen, as well as why the author prefers the second model stemming from the narrow understanding of trauma-related dissociation.