DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders: AMPD Explained

Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 13, 2026 · Editorial Policy

The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) is a clinically oriented framework for describing personality pathology through the severity of problems in self and interpersonal functioning and the pattern of maladaptive personality traits. Its two central dimensions are Criterion A, which asks how personality functioning is impaired, and Criterion B, which asks which maladaptive traits characterize that impairment. The model appears in Section III of DSM-5 and DSM-5-TR as an alternative classification intended to support clinical use and further research. The familiar ten personality disorder categories remain in Section II. The American Psychiatric Association's DSM-5-TR overview explicitly says the alternative model was retained without change in DSM-5-TR.

For readers, the central distinction is straightforward: having a recognizable personality trait does not establish a personality disorder. An AMPD assessment considers clinically significant, persistent difficulties in how a person understands themselves, pursues goals, understands other people, and sustains relationships, together with characteristic maladaptive traits and the broader diagnostic context. A questionnaire result or another person's description cannot substitute for this assessment.

What Is the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders?

The AMPD is a hybrid dimensional-categorical approach introduced in 2013. Dimensional means that a clinician assesses degrees of impairment and traits along continua rather than treating every feature as simply present or absent. Hybrid means that the model also retains algorithms for six named personality disorders alongside a more flexible diagnosis, Personality Disorder–Trait Specified (PD-TS). Its guiding clinical questions are how extensive the impairment is, what form the person's difficulties take, and whether the pattern satisfies the general conditions for a personality disorder.

The model emerged because the older categorical system has overlapping diagnoses, large differences among people assigned the same diagnosis, and many people whose clinically important patterns do not fit a single named category. The clinical overview of the AMPD and a 2025 validity and clinical-utility review describe the model as an attempt to improve the precision of clinical description and communication.

AMPD remains a formally described DSM alternative model, not a separate disease, a therapy, a stand-alone psychological test, or a newly enacted replacement for Section II. It can be used to organize assessment and research, and clinicians may communicate its findings alongside the classification and coding requirements relevant to their practice.

Why Was the AMPD Developed?

Categorical diagnostic systems create a practical question: if two people each meet the threshold for the same disorder but differ in emotional reactivity, social withdrawal, self-image, impulsivity, and severity, what does their shared label tell a clinician? Conversely, if one person meets criteria for several personality disorders, a series of labels may be less informative than a profile of the underlying difficulties. Such difficulties also exist by degree and may change over time.

The AMPD approaches those issues through a general severity component and a descriptive trait component. Criterion A summarizes the organization and impairment of self and interpersonal functioning. Criterion B describes recognizable patterns of experiencing, thinking, behaving, and relating. The scientific rationale for separating these questions was developed in work on personality functioning and on maladaptive trait measurement.

A dimensional description can preserve important information even when someone does not meet the algorithm for a named disorder. It may also help clinicians identify treatment priorities, communicate patterns of interpersonal difficulty, and track clinically meaningful changes. Whether every part of this framework adds unique predictive information is a research question, discussed below.

How the AMPD Works: Criteria A Through G

The complete model includes seven general diagnostic criteria, A through G. A and B carry the innovative content, but they are only part of the clinical decision.

Criterion A requires moderate or greater impairment in personality functioning, assessed in the domains of identity, self-direction, empathy, and intimacy. Under the model's general diagnostic approach, the threshold involves moderate or greater impairment in at least two of these four elements. Criterion B requires one or more pathological personality traits. The additional criteria require a relatively inflexible, pervasive and enduring pattern, whose onset can be traced to adolescence or early adulthood, and appropriate consideration of other mental disorders, substances, medical causes, developmental stage, and sociocultural context. The American Journal of Psychiatry clinical application details this sequential reasoning.

This means that a person might report strong anxiousness or social detachment yet have intact relationships, stable life goals, and flexible responses to changing circumstances. A trait finding by itself does not meet the AMPD's general definition of a personality disorder. Conversely, a person with significant impairment may require substantial clinical attention even when their presentation is poorly captured by one familiar categorical diagnosis.

Criterion A: The Level of Personality Functioning

Criterion A addresses the severity and nature of difficulties with the self and with other people. It uses the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS), with ratings from 0 (little or no impairment) through 4 (extreme impairment). Level 2 corresponds to moderate impairment, the general threshold used in AMPD personality disorder diagnosis. The scale provides descriptive anchors that clinicians evaluate in the context of the individual's life and development. Its theoretical and clinical foundations are discussed by Bender, Morey, and Skodol.

Identity

Identity refers to a person's experience of themselves as a distinct, coherent individual, including the stability and accuracy of self-appraisal, the regulation of self-esteem, and the organization of emotional experience. Clinical difficulties can involve a poorly integrated sense of self, pronounced fluctuations in self-evaluation, or emotions that disrupt a consistent understanding of personal experience. The clinician investigates how pervasive these difficulties are, how they affect real-life decisions and relationships, and whether they arise primarily in a different clinical condition.

Identity impairment is more specific than ordinary uncertainty about a career, values, belonging, or a life transition. Adolescence, grief, migration, cultural adaptation, and major personal change can all include intense self-questioning. Clinical interpretation requires duration, functional impact, developmental appropriateness, and context.

Self-Direction

Self-direction concerns the ability to formulate coherent goals, pursue meaningful directions, maintain workable standards of behavior, and reflect productively on one's own experience. Problems may include unstable aims, a rigid reliance on external validation, or difficulty using self-reflection to regulate choices over time. The evaluation considers what happens across work, education, intimate relationships, and everyday responsibilities.

A clinician should not confuse structural difficulties in self-direction with a temporary loss of motivation during depression, an executive-function problem, or a practical barrier caused by poverty, disability, or a demanding environment. These possibilities are evaluated rather than assumed away.

Empathy

Empathy in the LPFS refers to recognizing and understanding other people's experiences, motivations, and perspectives, appreciating differences between self and other, and considering how one's behavior affects others. It concerns the quality and flexibility of interpersonal understanding across situations. A person may understand another's perspective well in some circumstances and struggle under stress, conflict, or intense self-protective reactions.

A low score on one informal empathy quiz does not establish personality pathology. Communication style, cultural norms, neurodevelopmental differences, anxiety, and contextual misunderstandings can affect how empathy is expressed or perceived. Clinicians seek a sustained pattern of impaired interpersonal understanding with meaningful consequences.

Intimacy

Intimacy addresses the capacity to develop and sustain close relationships involving mutuality, trust, appropriate boundaries, and the ability to cooperate. Clinically significant problems may include repeated instability, marked emotional distance, exploitative patterns, or severe difficulties balancing independence and closeness.

Relationship choices alone do not diagnose impairment. Preferring solitude, choosing not to date, or maintaining a small social circle may be entirely consistent with healthy functioning. Assessment centers on the individual's goals, distress, patterns over time, and ability to participate in relationships they value.

What the LPFS severity rating means

The LPFS rating is a clinical description of functioning, not a measure of personal worth or a permanent prediction. Its levels provide a shared language for describing the extent of impairment, including how self-related and relationship-related difficulties interact. More extensive impairment generally indicates a greater need for careful assessment and individualized planning; it does not dictate a single treatment.

Research on reliability is encouraging but varies by method and assessor. A 2023 meta-analysis of interrater reliability found tentative support for Criterion A ratings while emphasizing heterogeneity and the potential benefit of structured interviewing. Evidence for the precise separation of identity, self-direction, empathy, and intimacy remains under investigation.

Criterion B: Five Maladaptive Personality Trait Domains

Criterion B describes the characteristic style in which personality-related difficulties manifest. Its five broad domains encompass 25 narrower trait facets. The model was developed using psychometric research and partly reflects maladaptive extensions of dimensions studied in general personality science. The original PID-5 development research identified a reproducible broad organization, and a structural review examines its strengths and limits.

Negative Affectivity

Negative Affectivity describes a pronounced tendency toward frequent or intense negative emotional experiences, including examples such as emotional lability, anxiousness, and separation insecurity. The pattern may be relevant when reactions persistently disrupt identity, goals, or relationships. The domain is conceptually related to normative neuroticism, but the presence of a high trait score is not interchangeable with a clinical disorder.

Detachment

Detachment encompasses patterns such as withdrawal, avoidance of intimacy, limited enjoyment, and restricted emotional expression. It describes a potential maladaptive pattern of distance from social and emotional experiences. It must be distinguished from culturally shaped reserve, introversion, sensory or social fatigue, and freely chosen solitude.

Antagonism

Antagonism includes manifestations such as grandiosity, attention seeking, manipulativeness, deceitfulness, or callousness. The relevance of any facet depends on its persistence, context, and consequences. The terms describe dimensions of clinical assessment and should not be used as a tool for diagnosing a person one dislikes or for assigning a disorder to someone involved in a conflict.

Disinhibition

Disinhibition concerns difficulty regulating impulses and actions, including tendencies toward irresponsibility, risk taking, or distractibility. In the AMPD framework, the opposite pole can include rigid overcontrol, represented by features such as rigid perfectionism in the trait model. Similar-looking difficulties can also arise during mania, substance use, ADHD, crises, or medical conditions; context and temporal course matter.

Psychoticism

Psychoticism in Criterion B describes unusual beliefs and experiences, eccentricity, and cognitive or perceptual dysregulation as personality traits. It does not automatically indicate a psychotic disorder, and its meaning should not be confused with the everyday use of the word psychotic. A clinician evaluating hallucinations, fixed delusions, major disorganization, or significant reality-testing changes must consider appropriate psychiatric differentials and safety needs.

Domains, facets, and diagnostic thresholds

A domain is a broad cluster of tendencies, while a facet is a narrower expression within it. Assessing facets can yield a more specific clinical profile than using only a broad domain score. A person's profile may contain more than one elevated dimension and can show strengths in other areas. The AMPD does not interpret all high scores as diagnoses: the pattern must be connected to Criterion A, other general criteria, and any relevant disorder-specific requirements.

Which Personality Disorders Are Included in the AMPD?

The hybrid AMPD retains six specified personality disorder types: antisocial, avoidant, borderline, narcissistic, obsessive-compulsive, and schizotypal personality disorders. The model provides disorder-specific combinations of impairments in personality functioning and characteristic trait requirements. It therefore adds structured dimensional descriptions to selected familiar clinical categories.

The six types should not be read as a claim that only six personality disorders exist in DSM-5-TR. The familiar Section II classification retains ten named personality disorders, historically grouped in Clusters A, B, and C. The AMPD's specified six were selected for its hybrid diagnostic framework; the other categories are not individually re-created in the same way. The AMPD clinical assessment review explains the six algorithms and the alternative PD-TS pathway.

Personality Disorder–Trait Specified (PD-TS)

PD-TS is the model's way of describing clinically significant personality dysfunction with pathological traits when a person does not meet the AMPD algorithm for one of the six specific types. Rather than using an ill-fitting named disorder, the clinician describes the trait configuration that helps explain the person's individual presentation.

PD-TS remains subject to the same general assessment principles. It is not a catch-all label for difficult relationships, personality quirks, or an isolated screening score. Its usefulness is that a clinical formulation can remain detailed when categorical boundaries are imperfect.

AMPD Versus DSM-5-TR Section II Personality Disorders

The Section II approach organizes clinical personality pathology mainly around ten diagnostic categories and sets of characteristic criteria. These categories can be valuable for communication, continuity with existing treatment studies, and clinical documentation. They also face the familiar problems of overlapping diagnoses and heterogeneity within categories.

The AMPD explicitly asks about functioning severity and trait configuration. Two people with the same traditional diagnosis might differ substantially in Criterion A impairment or Criterion B profile; the alternative model gives clinicians language for describing those differences. Conversely, clinicians can describe a meaningful personality pathology profile without forcing it into one named type.

A 2025 review by Sharp and colleagues concludes that the accumulated research supports the validity, reliability, and clinical utility of AMPD-defined pathology, frequently in comparison with categorical diagnosis, and recommends considering a simplified version for the main diagnostic section. That recommendation is a scientific proposal. The current APA description of DSM-5-TR Section III continues to identify AMPD as an alternative model rather than a replacement for Section II.

AMPD Versus ICD-11 Personality Disorder Classification

AMPD and ICD-11 both advance dimensional thinking, but they are distinct classification systems. The ICD-11 model emphasizes the presence and severity of personality disorder, commonly described as mild, moderate, or severe, with optional trait domain qualifiers. It also recognizes personality difficulty below the disorder threshold and includes a borderline pattern qualifier where clinically applicable. For formal ICD-11 language, consult the World Health Organization's 2024 clinical diagnostic requirements.

The AMPD uses Criterion A self/interpersonal functioning and five Criterion B domains: Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Antagonism, Disinhibition, and Psychoticism. ICD-11 uses Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Dissociality, Disinhibition, and Anankastia. The names and conceptual emphases overlap in meaningful ways, but Psychoticism and Anankastia are especially important differences, and AMPD's selected hybrid categories do not map one-to-one onto ICD-11.

Consequently, a clinician translating between systems cannot replace one word with another and assume identical meaning. Different diagnostic rules, qualifiers, severity judgments, and coding environments require separate evaluation. For the English Hub's broader classification overview, see DSM-5-TR vs ICD-11 Personality Disorders and its focused explanation of ICD-11 trait domains.

How Clinicians Assess the AMPD

A thorough assessment usually begins with an interview about the person's current concerns, history, functioning, relationships, goals, and experiences across multiple settings. The clinician explores symptom chronology, periods of stability, developmental events, strengths, sources of support, previous care, and relevant cultural and environmental factors. Information may come from structured interviews, clinical observation, validated rating instruments, and collateral history when appropriate and consented to.

The Level of Personality Functioning Scale helps organize Criterion A. Interview-based tools, including the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (SCID-5-AMPD), can assist the assessment of functioning and pathological traits. The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) is commonly used to measure Criterion B trait facets and domains. A clinical assessment application illustrates how clinicians integrate A and B with the other diagnostic requirements.

A PID-5 profile, LPFS questionnaire, or online screening score is evidence about a construct under specific measurement conditions. It does not establish a diagnosis by itself. Test interpretation requires attention to validity, norms, mode of administration, language, response style, clinical history, and impairment. A tool designed to support assessment is not automatically validated for choosing treatment or predicting a particular person's future.

Differential diagnosis and overlapping presentations

Depression can affect goals and self-appraisal; social anxiety can restrict intimacy; trauma-related conditions may influence relationships and emotion regulation; ADHD can affect planning and impulsivity; bipolar episodes can change energy, behavior, and risk-taking. Neurodevelopmental differences and cultural communication styles may affect how interpersonal functioning appears to others. Clinicians assess the onset, course, context, episodicity, and explanatory fit of each condition rather than inferring personality pathology from a shared symptom.

Symptoms can coexist, and a personality disorder diagnosis does not rule out another clinical disorder. The task is to explain the full presentation without double-counting or dismissing the person's specific needs. The model's additional C-through-G criteria make this differentiation part of the diagnostic process, not an optional afterthought.

Age, culture, and development

An enduring pattern must be interpreted against developmental stage. Identity exploration, relationship change, emotional intensity, and increasing autonomy are ordinary developmental processes, particularly in adolescence and emerging adulthood. Some clinically significant personality pathology can be identified during adolescence, but assessment requires developmentally appropriate expertise and careful consideration of persistence, impairment, and alternatives.

Cultural context shapes expectations about individual autonomy, family obligation, emotional display, boundaries, self-definition, and intimacy. Clinicians need to examine whose expectations are being used as a benchmark and what behavior means to the individual and community. The APA's Section III overview also emphasizes the role of cultural formulation in psychiatric assessment.

What Does Scientific Research Say About the AMPD?

The evidence base is substantial and continues to develop. Research supports the clinical relevance of the severity-and-trait approach, while several questions about structure, added value, and practical feasibility remain open.

Evidence supporting reliability and prediction

The 2025 comprehensive review by Sharp and colleagues synthesized studies of antecedents, concurrent features, predictive associations, reliability, and clinical utility. Its authors argue that AMPD-defined personality disorders often characterize pathology more precisely than categorical alternatives and are ready for consideration for main-section DSM inclusion.

In one prospective head-to-head clinical study, AMPD assessment predicted disability and symptom severity one year later better than Section II diagnoses in a sample of 84 participants. The modest sample and design limit broad generalization, but the study provides a clinically relevant test of predictive validity rather than only a cross-sectional correlation.

The Criterion A interrater-reliability meta-analysis reported tentative support for reliability and noted variation across studies, as well as possible advantages of structured clinical interviews. Good reproducibility depends in part on assessment procedures, training, and the specific rating being used.

Do Criteria A and B measure different things?

This is one of the central scientific debates. The theoretical distinction is clear: Criterion A characterizes impaired functioning and Criterion B describes its stylistic expression. In actual data, however, personality functioning ratings and maladaptive traits are often substantially associated.

A 2025 meta-analysis by Thimm, drawing on 44 studies and 47 independent samples, found moderate-to-large correlations between overall LPFS scores and PID-5 traits, with pooled values ranging from approximately .44 for Antagonism to .64 for Detachment. The associations raise questions about how much genuinely independent information each component contributes, while also indicating that the two assessments capture overlapping aspects of clinically relevant pathology.

A 2024 review by García and colleagues is more critical of the incremental validity and distinctiveness of Criterion A and emphasizes the strong empirical organization of Criterion B. Other research, including a study of incremental diagnostic utility, finds value in assessing both components. The evidence therefore supports continued investigation of whether alternative operationalizations, assessment methods, or simpler models would improve the balance between precision and efficiency.

What remains uncertain?

The AMPD is a diagnostic framework, not itself a randomized treatment intervention. Better characterization does not automatically prove better treatment outcomes, safer decisions, lower costs, or reduced stigma. The availability of specialized structured interviews, clinician training, patient acceptability, cross-cultural replication, and practical implementation will influence its usefulness.

Some research uses convenience samples or self-report measures that share method-related biases. Some constructs are harder to distinguish statistically than conceptually. Studies of one disorder, age range, healthcare system, or instrument cannot always be transferred to another. These limits are reasons to interpret claims in proportion to their evidence.

Does the AMPD Change Treatment?

The model may improve case formulation by separating broad impairment from specific maladaptive trait tendencies. For example, a clinician might identify difficulties with self-direction and intimacy alongside marked negative affectivity, then collaborate with the patient on goals for emotion regulation, identity coherence, interpersonal flexibility, and functional participation. The plan must still consider personal preferences, co-occurring disorders, psychosocial needs, immediate risks, and treatments supported for the person's clinical presentation.

There is no universally established treatment protocol that follows automatically from an AMPD trait configuration. A preliminary treatment framework proposes how findings might inform psychotherapy targets, but its clinical proposals do not establish comparative treatment efficacy. The strength of evidence for a particular psychotherapy depends on the condition, population, and intervention, and research on borderline personality disorder cannot automatically be generalized to other personality disorders.

Severity may help clinicians think about care intensity and monitoring, while the individual's strengths and goals remain essential to care planning. Improvement is possible; neither a high impairment rating nor a diagnostic label defines a person's value or fixed life trajectory.

Practical Meaning for Patients and Families

If a clinician refers to AMPD, a productive starting point is to ask how the assessment describes everyday functioning and what information supports the conclusions. Discuss the situations in which difficulties arise, the circumstances in which functioning is stronger, whether particular symptoms could have another explanation, and which goals matter most to the person receiving care.

Clinical language should facilitate an accurate conversation, not become a judgment about character. People with similar clinical ratings may have different histories, relationships, coping skills, and preferences. Families and partners can benefit from understanding specific interaction patterns and appropriate boundaries without attempting to diagnose someone remotely.

When there are immediate concerns about self-harm, suicidal thoughts, severe aggression, or psychotic symptoms, those issues require direct clinical assessment and appropriate urgent support regardless of the personality model used. AMPD assessment is not a substitute for an immediate safety evaluation.

Common Misconceptions About the AMPD

“Criterion B is a personality test that tells me which disorder I have.”

Criterion B is a clinical construct describing maladaptive traits. Instruments such as PID-5 help measure aspects of that construct. An elevated domain or facet score is not equivalent to meeting the full AMPD criteria, particularly Criterion A, persistence, functional impact, and differential requirements.

“DSM-5-TR has replaced all ten disorders with the AMPD.”

DSM-5-TR retains the ten familiar personality disorder categories in Section II and the alternative model in Section III. A 2025 scientific recommendation to move toward greater use of AMPD should not be described as an already enacted classification change.

“If someone has strong negative emotions or avoids intimacy, they have a personality disorder.”

Many traits exist in the general population and vary with context. A personality disorder requires a clinically significant and enduring pattern assessed in relation to functioning, development, alternative explanations, and the person's sociocultural environment. For this boundary, see Personality Disorders vs Personality Traits.

“Psychoticism means psychosis, and antagonism proves somebody is abusive.”

AMPD trait labels describe statistically and clinically studied dimensions. They do not substitute for assessment of a psychotic disorder or establish the causes, motives, or diagnosis of a person's conduct. Harmful behavior deserves direct attention on its own terms without speculative third-party labels.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the AMPD an official DSM diagnosis?

It is an official alternative diagnostic model described in DSM-5 and retained in DSM-5-TR Section III. The standard categorical personality disorder diagnoses remain in Section II. Clinicians must follow applicable diagnostic documentation and coding requirements, even when they use AMPD concepts to guide assessment.

What is the difference between Criterion A and Criterion B?

Criterion A describes the degree of clinically significant disturbance in identity, self-direction, empathy, and intimacy. Criterion B describes the characteristic configuration of maladaptive traits, such as negative affectivity, detachment, or disinhibition. Both are considered with additional general diagnostic conditions.

How many personality disorders does AMPD recognize?

The AMPD includes six specific diagnostic algorithms: antisocial, avoidant, borderline, narcissistic, obsessive-compulsive, and schizotypal. It also provides the Personality Disorder–Trait Specified pathway for qualifying cases that do not fit a specific hybrid category. This does not change the ten named diagnoses retained in DSM-5-TR Section II.

What is the LPFS, and what does a score of 2 mean?

The Level of Personality Functioning Scale rates impairment from 0 to 4. A rating of 2 denotes moderate impairment. Clinical application depends on how impairment is distributed across functioning elements and on the full assessment, not simply a number recorded without context.

Is the PID-5 a diagnostic test?

PID-5 is a personality trait assessment instrument used to investigate the AMPD's maladaptive trait dimensions. It can contribute to clinical evaluation but cannot establish a personality disorder diagnosis independently.

Is AMPD the same thing as the ICD-11 model?

No. Both employ dimensional concepts, but their severity rules, trait domains, category structures, and qualifiers differ. ICD-11 includes Anankastia and Dissociality among its domains, whereas AMPD includes Psychoticism and Antagonism.

Can someone have personality difficulties without a personality disorder?

Yes. Individuals may experience traits or difficulties that matter clinically or personally without fulfilling the requirements for a personality disorder. Appropriate support can address distress or impairment regardless of whether a diagnostic threshold is met.

Can AMPD ratings change during treatment?

Functioning and trait expressions can change, and assessment may be repeated when clinically useful. The meaning of score changes depends on measurement reliability, time interval, context, and the person's real-world functioning. No single AMPD score determines prognosis.

Is AMPD better than the traditional system?

Research provides encouraging evidence for more detailed assessment, reliability, and predictive validity, but findings depend on measures, samples, and outcomes. The strongest conclusion is that AMPD is a well-studied alternative with considerable potential and ongoing debates about simplification and Criterion A's distinctiveness.

Related Articles

Personality Disorders: Types, Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Treatment provides the broader clinical overview.

DSM-5-TR vs ICD-11 Personality Disorders: Diagnosis and Classification explains the parent classification question.

Personality Functioning: Identity, Self-Direction, Empathy, and Intimacy develops the four functioning elements in detail.

ICD-11 Personality Disorder Trait Domains Explained covers the international trait model.

Personality Disorders vs Personality Traits: Clinical Differences clarifies the clinical threshold.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2022). DSM-5-TR: Section III overview, including the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders. American Psychiatric Association.

Bender, D. S., Morey, L. C., & Skodol, A. E. (2011). Toward a model for assessing level of personality functioning in DSM-5, Part I: A review of theory and methods. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93(4), 332–346.

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (2022). The trait model of the DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorder (AMPD): A structural review. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 13(4), 328–336.

García, L. F., Gutiérrez, F., García, O., & Aluja, A. (2024). The Alternative Model of Personality Disorders: Assessment, convergent and discriminant validity, and a look to the future. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 20, 431–455.

Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42(9), 1879–1890.

Morey, L. C., Berghuis, H., Bender, D. S., Verheul, R., Krueger, R. F., & Skodol, A. E. (2011). Toward a model for assessing level of personality functioning in DSM-5, Part II: Empirical articulation of a core dimension of personality pathology. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93(4), 347–353.

Nysaeter, T. E., et al. (2023). The incremental utility of Criteria A and B of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders for predicting Section II personality disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 105(1), 111–120.

Sharp, C., Clark, L. A., Balzen, K. M., Widiger, T., Stepp, S., Zimmerman, M., & Krueger, R. F. (2025). The validity, reliability and clinical utility of the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) according to DSM-5 revision criteria. World Psychiatry, 24(3), 319–340.

Skodol, A. E., et al. (2015). The Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders: A clinical application. American Journal of Psychiatry.

Thimm, J. C. (2025). The associations between personality functioning (Criterion A) and pathological personality traits (Criterion B) in the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders in DSM-5: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 16, 1673139.

World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. World Health Organization.