Diagnosis and classification of personality disorders: novel approaches
Abstract
Purpose of review To provide an update of the recent studies, which have evaluated the radical changes in personality disorder classification in DSM-5 and ICD-11. Recent findings Although the DSM-5 Committee rejected the personality disorders Work Group proposal for personality disorder classification, the model was published in DSM-5 Section III. This Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) has been widely adopted by the research community resulting in multiple studies evaluating its reliability and clinical utility. The ICD-11 Personality Classification has recently been accepted by the WHO and is also receiving increasing study. Both models emphasize personality disorder severity, which most studies report is consistently linked to impairment and outcome. Both models propose five descriptive domains, which appear to capture most of the current personality disorder diagnoses, and can also be linked to disease extremes of normal personality such as the Five Factor Model. Summary The changes in DSM-5 AMPD and ICD-11 represent a significant paradigm shift in the diagnosis of personality disorders. Early research suggests that the changes may be beneficial for clinicians and researchers. The models more closely align with the large body of literature supporting dimensional models of normal personality. The severity dimensions are consistent with the large body of evidence that personality disorder severity is a strong determinant of impairment and outcome. It remains…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Substantial upticks in research activity can already be seen in some areas of ICD-11/DSM-5 divergence, such as PTSD/CPTSD, Personality Disorders, and childhood irritability/anger.
“Indeed, substantial upticks in research activity can already be seen in some areas of ICD-11/DSM-5 divergence, such as PTSD/ CPTSD 59-61 , Personality Disorders 96-99 , and childhood irritability/anger 31,83 .”
From An organization‐ and category‐level comparison of diagnostic requirements for mental disorders in <scp>ICD</scp> ‐11 and <scp>DSM</scp> ‐5 (2021) · cites this paper as [96]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 36 · Cited by 52
- Authors
- Mulder, R., & Tyrer, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Otago (NZ)
- Imperial College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Mulder, Roger
- Venue
- Current Opinion in Psychiatry
- Published
- 2019-01
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 27-31
- ISSN
- 0951-7367 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2893816652
- Cited by
- 52
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 0.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Current Opinion in Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (07/01/26)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
- Keywords
- personality disorders, personality disorder classification, DSM-5, ICD-11, Alternative Model for Personality Disorders, personality disorder severity, Big Five personality traits, dimensional models of personality, diagnostic classification, clinical utility
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Personality Disorders, Reproducibility of Results, International Classification of Diseases, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review