ICD-11 Personality Disorder Severity: Mild, Moderate, and Severe
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 12, 2026 · Editorial Policy
ICD-11 classifies personality disorder by how extensively and seriously a persistent disturbance affects a person's sense of self, relationships, behavior, and everyday functioning. Once the general diagnostic requirements are met, a clinician can specify mild personality disorder (6D10.0), moderate personality disorder (6D10.1), or severe personality disorder (6D10.2). The distinction concerns the breadth, intensity, and consequences of personality dysfunction. It is a clinical judgment based on a comprehensive assessment, not a score assigned from one personality trait or an isolated incident. The authoritative framework is the World Health Organization's 2024 ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements.
A person may experience substantial distress with a relatively circumscribed pattern of impairment, retain important capacities despite serious difficulties in several areas, or require coordinated care because difficulties disrupt nearly every part of life. These situations can call for different levels of clinical support. ICD-11 severity helps describe that difference, while additional trait qualifiers describe the characteristic form of the disturbance. Severity is neither a measure of human worth nor an immutable forecast.
What does personality disorder severity mean in ICD-11?
The ICD-11 approach begins with an enduring disturbance in self-functioning and/or interpersonal functioning, expressed through maladaptive patterns of thinking, emotion, and behavior across situations. The pattern must be developmentally and culturally assessed, associated with substantial distress or meaningful impairment, and ordinarily persist over an extended period. The WHO classification organizes established personality disorder within code 6D10 and assigns its level of severity.
Severity answers the question: How pervasive and consequential is the personality-related impairment across the person's life? It is informed by the stability and accuracy of self-understanding, the ability to pursue goals, the capacity for close and mutually satisfying relationships, the management of interpersonal conflict, emotional and behavioral regulation, and resulting distress and disability. Clinicians also consider potential harm to self or others, without assuming that either is present in everyone with a personality disorder.
The model differs from an approach that first identifies one of several named personality disorder types. In ICD-11, the level of impairment is foundational; optional trait-domain qualifiers and, when applicable, a borderline pattern qualifier help describe how that impairment is expressed. A clinical overview by Mulder (2021) explains the rationale for organizing personality disorder by severity and clinically prominent traits.
Mild, moderate, and severe: the essential differences
Mild personality disorder — 6D10.0
In mild personality disorder, the full general requirements for a personality disorder are met, but the disturbance affects some capacities or areas of life more than others, or appears with lower intensity across a wider range. Important relationships or work, educational, family, or social roles may remain intact even while recurrent difficulties cause meaningful distress or impairment.
For example, a person may repeatedly encounter substantial problems in intimate relationships and struggle to adapt under relational stress while maintaining stable friendships and occupational responsibilities. This is an illustration of the pattern of functioning, not a hypothetical diagnosis: similar difficulties can arise from many causes, and the clinician must establish persistence, context, threshold, and differential diagnosis.
Mild means that the pattern is comparatively limited in severity, not that the distress is trivial. The WHO describes substantial harm to self or others as atypical at this level, but clinical risk is assessed separately for every individual. The threshold still requires clinically significant consequences; ordinary stubbornness, shyness, perfectionism, or intermittent conflict cannot by themselves establish mild personality disorder. See the WHO clinical manual and the severity formulation reviewed in Bach and First (2018).
Moderate personality disorder — 6D10.1
Moderate personality disorder involves meaningful disturbances across multiple areas of personality functioning. Problems in most close or recurring relationships may be evident, and the performance of social or occupational roles is compromised to a significant degree. A person may nevertheless maintain some capacities, relationships, and areas of functioning.
The impairment may appear as persistent conflict, marked social withdrawal, excessive dependency, rigid control, or other patterns, depending on the person's clinical presentation. Moderate severity does not designate one style of personality. It describes the extent of self and interpersonal dysfunction, its impact across settings, and associated distress or disability.
Clinicians examine what remains possible, what has become difficult, and how stable those patterns have been. Occasional harm to self or others can occur at this level, but is neither necessary nor sufficient for it. A current crisis may require urgent care regardless of the enduring personality-disorder severity classification. The WHO ICD-11 CDDR distinguishes severity on the basis of the entire clinical picture.
Severe personality disorder — 6D10.2
Severe personality disorder describes extensive and intense disturbance in self-functioning and interpersonal functioning. The person's ability to sustain relationships, fulfill major roles, respond flexibly to demands, or maintain stable self-understanding can be profoundly compromised. Dysfunction tends to affect most or nearly all major areas of life and may require sustained, multidisciplinary treatment and practical support.
Some people at this level experience pronounced instability in self-experience; others show marked rigidity, pervasive interpersonal dysfunction, or multiple difficulties across cognition, emotion, and behavior. The clinical manifestations vary. Severe personality disorder is often associated with elevated risk of harm to self or others in WHO's descriptive framework, but such harm is not a universal feature, and dangerousness cannot be inferred from the diagnosis.
The severity descriptor concerns the current clinical extent of an enduring disturbance. It says nothing about someone's dignity, moral character, or capacity to improve. A single emergency presentation, a dramatic argument, a history of hospitalization, or a socially stigmatized behavior cannot alone establish the severe category. The decision requires a longitudinal, contextual assessment using the WHO diagnostic requirements.
Comparison of the three severity levels
Mild: impairment is clinically significant yet relatively circumscribed or lower in intensity; some relationships and important roles are maintained. Moderate: dysfunction spans multiple domains, commonly interfering with many relationships and roles, while some areas remain substantially preserved. Severe: pervasive, intense dysfunction seriously compromises relationships and major life roles across most areas.
These distinctions describe typical clinical configurations, not a numerical ladder on which every person fits neatly. A clinician may have to weigh seemingly conflicting evidence: major distress alongside good employment, extreme relationship difficulty alongside competent caregiving, or severe functional decline during a depressive episode. The full ICD-11 formulation matters more than matching a person to a short online example.
How clinicians determine the severity level
First establish that a personality disorder is present
Assessment begins with the general diagnostic requirements. Clinicians investigate whether the pattern has endured over time, affects self or interpersonal functioning, is relatively pervasive rather than limited to one relationship or episode, results in clinically significant distress or impairment, and is not better accounted for by developmental stage, social and cultural circumstances, substances, medical conditions, or another mental disorder.
The ICD-11's descriptions refer to persistence over an extended period, with two years or more given as an example. That time frame does not authorize a diagnosis from an online checklist or substitute for developmental history. Early life patterns, changes through adolescence and adulthood, and the duration and course of symptoms all contribute to evaluation. For official wording, consult the WHO CDDR.
Examine self-functioning
Self-functioning includes continuity and coherence of identity, realistic and reasonably stable self-evaluation, and the capacity for self-direction. A clinician asks how the person understands personal strengths and limitations; whether self-worth is persistently unstable, excessively diminished, or inflexible; and whether goals can be formulated and pursued in a sustainable way.
The PDS-ICD-11 development study operationalized self-functioning through identity, self-worth, self-view, and self-direction. Its researchers emphasized that dysfunction can involve opposing patterns, such as excessive self-devaluation or inflated self-evaluation, excessive restraint or impulsivity. A severity judgment therefore cannot be reduced to looking for one recognizable personality style.
Examine interpersonal functioning
Interpersonal assessment considers the person's ability and interest in forming relationships, appreciating other people's perspectives, managing conflict, and sustaining close and mutually satisfying connections. The clinician evaluates romantic partnerships, family relationships, friendships, work relationships, and other relevant roles without assuming that every domain should look culturally identical.
Impairment may be reflected in recurrent avoidance, withdrawal, conflict, dependency, mistrust, or severe inflexibility. Context changes the interpretation: a person living in an unsafe environment may show adaptive caution or avoidance; an autistic person's social communication pattern requires a neurodevelopmentally informed assessment; and discrimination or other structural barriers can compromise participation without constituting personality pathology.
Evaluate emotion, cognition, behavior, and life impact
Clinicians examine how persistently emotions become hard to understand or regulate; whether interpretations of events and other people's intentions become inflexible or distorted, especially under stress; and whether decisions, impulses, and actions can adapt to changing situations. The assessment then connects these manifestations to functioning: educational progress, employment, housing, relationships, caregiving, health, and ordinary daily responsibilities.
Risk assessments are individualized. Suicidal thoughts, self-injury, aggression, substance-related risks, and exploitation may need prompt attention, but their presence does not automatically determine the ICD-11 personality-disorder level. The PDS-ICD-11 framework includes specific attention to manifestations, possible harm, and overall psychosocial impairment, as described by Bach et al. (2021).
Use clinical interviews and corroborating information
A careful evaluation combines the person's account, clinical interviewing, observation, diagnostic history, developmental and cultural information, symptom course, relevant medical records, and collateral information when appropriate and consented to. Structured instruments may help organize evidence and monitor changes. They do not replace clinical reasoning or establish the diagnosis on their own.
Severity ratings are especially vulnerable to a snapshot bias: a person assessed during bereavement, acute mood disturbance, substance withdrawal, relationship crisis, or a threatening environment may function differently from their longer-term baseline. Clinicians should document what is persistent, what is episodic, what is uncertain, and what follows from the person's environment or co-occurring condition.
ICD-11 personality difficulty and unspecified severity
The boundary below mild personality disorder is important. ICD-11 recognizes personality difficulty (QE50.7) for enduring, clinically relevant personality characteristics that may influence care or relationships but do not reach the threshold for personality disorder. It is a health-status or encounter-related category, not a personality-disorder diagnosis. Problems may be narrower, intermittent, or insufficiently impairing to satisfy the disorder requirements.
The distinction between personality difficulty and mild personality disorder depends on careful evaluation of the threshold, persistence, and degree of impairment. A pronounced trait, chronic perfectionism, or an inflexible interpersonal style might be relevant to care yet remain below the diagnostic threshold. ICD-11 also permits personality disorder, severity unspecified (6D10.Z), when the disorder is established but adequate information to specify severity is unavailable. Unspecified severity should not be mistaken for a fourth clinical level. These categories appear in the WHO ICD-11 system.
Severity versus trait domains: two different clinical questions
Once severity has been determined, ICD-11 can characterize the pattern with prominent trait-domain qualifiers: negative affectivity, detachment, dissociality, disinhibition, and anankastia. Clinicians can use more than one relevant qualifier, and the borderline pattern qualifier may also be applied when the clinical requirements are met.
Severity describes how extensive the impairment is. Trait domains describe its characteristic expression. Someone with a highly withdrawn pattern and someone with substantial emotional dysregulation may have a similar level of overall impairment yet need different formulations and therapeutic emphases. Likewise, two people with prominent negative affectivity can differ greatly in functioning and therefore in ICD-11 severity. The ICD-11 clinical model overview outlines these separate descriptive roles.
Anankastia involves tendencies toward rigid control, perfectionism, and insistence on rules within the ICD-11 maladaptive trait model. Dissociality concerns disregard for others' rights and feelings in that model. These descriptors require clinical interpretation and do not authorize labeling a difficult colleague, former partner, or public figure. A popular Big Five score does not produce an ICD-11 trait qualifier or a severity diagnosis; the English Hub's discussion of neuroticism and personality disorders gives a complementary explanation of the trait-versus-disorder boundary.
How does ICD-11 severity compare with DSM-5-TR?
The traditional DSM-5-TR framework retains named personality-disorder categories, including borderline, avoidant, narcissistic, obsessive-compulsive, and antisocial personality disorders. The historically familiar DSM clusters A, B, and C group those diagnoses but are not the categories used to describe severity in ICD-11. See the American Psychiatric Association's clinical overview.
The alternative model for personality disorders in DSM-5 Section III also incorporates impairments in personality functioning and maladaptive traits. Its Level of Personality Functioning Scale considers identity, self-direction, empathy, and intimacy. These constructs overlap substantially with ICD-11's self and interpersonal functioning, but the operational criteria, structure, and decision rules are not identical. A DSM categorical diagnosis or alternative-model rating cannot be converted into an ICD-11 severity code by a simple lookup table.
In a comparative investigation, Bach and Anderson (2020) evaluated patient-reported ICD-11 severity and a DSM-5 personality-functioning measure. Their work provides support for related dimensions of dysfunction while illustrating that measures developed for different models still need their own validation. The severity-level focus of this article belongs to ICD-11; a complete DSM-versus-ICD classification comparison is a separate clinical question.
Can a questionnaire measure ICD-11 severity?
Researchers have developed self-report and clinician-rated instruments, including the 14-item Personality Disorder Severity for ICD-11 scale (PDS-ICD-11), to assist in assessing personality dysfunction. Initial development included a representative U.S. community sample and a New Zealand mental health sample; the researchers found promising validity associations while explicitly calling for further testing. The original study does not establish a universal self-diagnosis cutoff.
A later validation study in community mental health investigated performance across severity levels, and Sellbom, Brown, and Bach (2024) studied a clinician-rated version. The Standardized Assessment of Severity of Personality Disorder (SASPD) is another research measure, developed in relation to an earlier formulation of the ICD-11 model. The instruments differ in what they assess, how they are administered, and their evidentiary maturity.
A 2023 systematic review of diagnostic accuracy evaluated twelve eligible studies of ICD-11 and DSM-5 dimensional severity measures. The pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates were encouraging, yet methodological concerns were common and the evidence was inadequate to establish reliable universal cross-cultural cutoffs for individual instruments. A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis found generally adequate internal consistency across ICD-11 severity and trait measures, alongside substantial heterogeneity and the need for stronger interrater, longitudinal, and interview-based validation. A reliable questionnaire is an aid to clinical assessment, not its replacement.
For the reader, the practical conclusion is clear: a high number on an online personality disorder test indicates neither that ICD-11 diagnostic requirements have been met nor whether any diagnosed disorder is mild, moderate, or severe. It can be a useful prompt to discuss longstanding difficulties and functional impact with a qualified professional.
What the evidence supports—and what remains uncertain
The severity framework has a coherent clinical rationale and an emerging empirical base. In a community mental health study, Brown and Sellbom found strong reliability of clinician severity ratings and associations with impairment. That is evidence in favor of feasibility and validity in the studied setting, not proof that all clinicians in all health systems will reach the same judgment.
A New Zealand clinician survey reported favorable ratings of ICD-11 clinical utility relative to the DSM categorical approach on several assessed dimensions, while identifying structural and cultural-safety concerns. Implementation depends on clinician training, service organization, access to treatment, and appropriate cultural adaptation.
Additional questions concern the overlap between global severity and maladaptive trait scores, the ability to predict long-term functioning beyond existing assessments, and whether changes in severity categories reliably reflect clinically meaningful recovery. One Spanish mixed-sample analysis found substantial statistical overlap among severity, trait domains, and borderline-pattern measures. Such findings support continued model testing instead of treating the classification as a complete explanation of an individual's difficulties.
Many foundational studies have relatively small or specialized samples. The clinical relevance of a severity category must therefore be interpreted alongside a person's own goals, functioning, supports, symptoms, and treatment response. Evidence about one personality disorder treatment or one assessment instrument should not be generalized automatically to every severity level or personality presentation.
Why severity matters for treatment and services
A severity formulation can help clinicians decide how broad, sustained, and coordinated a person's treatment plan should be. Someone whose persistent difficulties are limited to a few settings may benefit from targeted, structured psychological care and support around specific roles. Someone with recurrent major impairments across relationships, housing, work, and safety may need a more integrated approach involving specialist mental health care, social support, crisis planning, and ongoing functional rehabilitation.
These are clinical planning principles, not a WHO-prescribed psychotherapy algorithm in which mild automatically means one treatment and severe means another. Individual preference, comorbidities, access, readiness, previous care, safety, and local service capacity all shape the plan. Severity labels should support access to appropriate treatment rather than function as grounds for exclusion.
For borderline personality disorder specifically, the American Psychiatric Association's 2024 practice guideline emphasizes structured psychotherapy and individualized care planning. Evidence for those recommendations belongs to that clinical condition and must not simply be assigned to all ICD-11 personality disorder presentations. The NICE guideline for borderline personality disorder similarly recommends thorough assessment, psychological care, and careful management of medication and crises in its specified context.
There is no medication that reverses an ICD-11 severity code. Prescriptions may be clinically appropriate for separate psychiatric conditions or clearly defined target symptoms after individualized evaluation. Medication decisions should address expected benefits, adverse effects, interactions, and review plans rather than being driven by a generic label of 'severe personality disorder.'
Can someone move from severe to moderate or mild?
Personality functioning and everyday outcomes can change over time. Effective psychotherapy, stable relationships, supportive environments, treatment of co-occurring conditions, and opportunities for education or work can contribute to better functioning. An individualized clinical reassessment may therefore lead to a different severity formulation. The ICD-11 levels should be understood as descriptions of assessed current and longstanding functioning, not permanent identities.
Change is multidimensional. A reduction in acute self-harm, for example, may be an important improvement without fully restoring work or relationship functioning. Conversely, a person may rebuild substantial everyday functioning while still experiencing distress, sensitivity to rejection, or difficulty with closeness. Good follow-up evaluates both symptoms and meaningful life outcomes over time.
Outcome evidence differs across personality presentations and interventions. Improvement cannot be promised according to a single diagnosis or severity label, but the classification provides no scientific basis for declaring a person's future hopeless. Treatment plans should be reviewed collaboratively as new evidence of functioning, strengths, risks, and preferences emerges.
Age, culture, trauma, and other diagnostic considerations
Personality assessment requires an understanding of the person's developmental stage. Behavior during adolescence or an acute transition should not automatically be interpreted as an enduring adult personality pattern. Similarly, a personality-disorder severity rating should not be inferred from one difficult period in later life without examining longitudinal history and relevant medical or neurological changes.
Culture shapes expectations about independence, conflict, closeness, work, family obligations, and expressions of emotion. Clinicians must distinguish harmful inflexibility and clinically significant dysfunction from behavior that is culturally coherent or a response to structural adversity. Interpersonal behavior may also reflect legitimate reactions to coercion, violence, unstable housing, discrimination, or war.
Trauma-related conditions, depression, bipolar disorder, psychosis, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, ADHD, autism, and substance-related conditions can affect functioning, emotion regulation, relationships, or self-perception. These possible explanations should be assessed on their own terms. Co-occurrence is possible, and a careful differential formulation may identify more than one clinically relevant condition. The main question remains which disturbances are enduring and pervasive, what explains them, and how best to provide care.
Practical guidance if you are seeking an assessment
If longstanding patterns in self-understanding, relationships, decision-making, or daily functioning are causing significant distress, a mental health professional experienced in personality assessment can help evaluate their course and possible explanations. Bring examples from different settings and periods, the impact on work or study and close relationships, past diagnoses, and any treatments that helped or did not help. You can ask what diagnostic framework is being used and what evidence supports both the diagnosis and severity specification.
Useful questions for a clinician include how they distinguished enduring personality dysfunction from current depression, trauma reactions, neurodevelopmental differences, or a difficult environment; which areas of functioning are relatively preserved; what outcomes the treatment plan will track; and when the formulation should be revisited. An assessment should also identify the person's strengths, values, supports, and own priorities.
If you or someone else faces immediate danger, an acute risk of suicide, serious self-injury, violence, or rapidly worsening mental state, seek urgent local emergency or crisis care. The immediate safety need takes priority over classifying long-term personality-disorder severity.
Common misconceptions
'Mild' means the person barely needs help
Mild personality disorder still crosses a diagnostic threshold and can be associated with substantial suffering or meaningful impairment. It describes a less pervasive or intense pattern compared with other severity levels; it does not negate the need for treatment when appropriate.
'Severe' means violent or untreatable
The severe classification concerns widespread impairment and may indicate more complex care needs. Individual risk must be assessed separately. Severe does not mean violent, morally deficient, or beyond improvement.
Three levels mean three separate kinds of personality disorder
The levels describe severity within one ICD-11 disorder framework. Prominent maladaptive traits and, when relevant, the borderline pattern qualifier describe additional characteristics. These parts of the formulation answer different questions.
A low score rules out personality disorder
No single self-report score can rule a personality disorder in or out. Diagnosis depends on the complete clinical requirements, contextual history, interview findings, impairment, exclusions, and professional judgment.
Frequently asked questions
What are the ICD-11 personality disorder severity codes?
ICD-11 identifies mild personality disorder as 6D10.0, moderate as 6D10.1, and severe as 6D10.2. Personality disorder, severity unspecified, is 6D10.Z. Personality difficulty, QE50.7, is a separate category below the disorder threshold.
Is moderate personality disorder the same as borderline personality disorder?
No. 'Moderate' describes how much persistent personality dysfunction affects functioning. 'Borderline' describes a different clinical pattern: borderline personality disorder is a categorical DSM diagnosis, while ICD-11 allows a borderline pattern qualifier alongside a severity formulation when appropriate. Neither term automatically dictates the other.
Can someone have severe symptoms but mild personality disorder?
A person can experience very intense symptoms during a specific episode while having a comparatively less pervasive enduring personality disturbance, or have no established personality disorder. Severity decisions require separating immediate symptom intensity from the extent and persistence of personality dysfunction. A serious acute symptom always deserves assessment on its own merits.
Does someone need to self-harm to be diagnosed with severe personality disorder?
No. Harm to self or others is one consideration in the WHO's severity descriptions, but no single behavior defines the level. Clinicians assess self-functioning, interpersonal functioning, manifestations, and overall consequences together. Any current safety risk is addressed regardless of the chronic severity classification.
How long must the difficulties be present?
ICD-11 describes persistent disturbances over an extended period, using two years or more as an illustrative duration in its general description. A full clinical evaluation considers the developmental course, context, exclusions, and functional impact instead of treating duration as a stand-alone diagnostic test.
Is personality difficulty the same as mild personality disorder?
No. Personality difficulty falls below the threshold for personality disorder and may be relevant to treatment or interpersonal functioning. Mild personality disorder meets the full general diagnostic requirements and has clinically significant associated distress or impairment.
Are the severity levels used in the United States?
ICD-11 is the WHO international classification. U.S. clinicians commonly use DSM-5-TR diagnostic terminology and the applicable national coding system; adoption and administrative use of ICD-11 vary by jurisdiction. A U.S. patient may encounter ICD-11 concepts in research or specialist discussion without those codes being the same as the codes used on an American insurance claim.
Does the diagnosis determine which therapy will work?
It informs clinical planning but does not identify one universally best therapy. Treatment choice depends on the full formulation, co-occurring conditions, the person's goals, safety, evidence for the particular clinical presentation, and available expertise. ICD-11 severity helps communicate support needs rather than replacing individualized treatment planning.
Related Articles
For a detailed explanation of ICD-11's five clinical trait qualifiers, see ICD-11 Personality Disorder Trait Domains Explained.
The English Hub's published article Neuroticism and Personality Disorders: Dimensional Traits and Clinical Diagnosis expands on why a personality trait and a personality disorder belong to different levels of clinical description.
Can the Big Five Diagnose Mental Illness? explains the limits of interpreting general personality questionnaires as clinical diagnostic instruments.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2024). The American Psychiatric Association practice guideline for the treatment of patients with borderline personality disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry.
American Psychiatric Association. What are personality disorders? APA patient and family information.
Bach, B., & Anderson, J. L. (2020). Patient-reported ICD-11 personality disorder severity and DSM-5 level of personality functioning. Journal of Personality Disorders, 34, 231–249. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2018_32_393.
Bach, B., Brown, T. A., Mulder, R. T., Newton-Howes, G., Simonsen, E., & Sellbom, M. (2021). Development and initial evaluation of the ICD-11 personality disorder severity scale: PDS-ICD-11. Personality and Mental Health, 15, 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1510.
Bach, B., & First, M. B. (2018). Application of the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders. BMC Psychiatry / clinical review. Full text.
Brown, T. A., & Sellbom, M. (2023). Examining the reliability and validity of the ICD-11 personality disorder severity diagnosis. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 57, 1043–1051. https://doi.org/10.1177/00048674221136457.
Brown, T. A., & Sellbom, M. (2023). Further validation of the Personality Disorder Severity for ICD-11 scale in a community mental health sample. Psychological Assessment, 35, 706–714. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001253.
Brown, T. A., et al. (2023). New Zealand (Aotearoa) clinicians' perspectives on the utility of the ICD-11 personality disorder diagnosis. Personality and Mental Health. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1582.
Gutiérrez, F., et al. (2023). Severity in the ICD-11 personality disorder model: Evaluation in a Spanish mixed sample. Full text.
Hualparuca-Olivera, L., & Caycho-Rodríguez, T. (2023). Diagnostic accuracy of severity measures of ICD-11 and DSM-5 personality disorder: Clarifying the clinical landscape with the most up-to-date evidence. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1209679.
Hualparuca-Olivera, L., et al. (2024). Internal consistency of measures for ICD-11 personality disorder severity and traits: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Personality and Mental Health, 18, 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1631.
Mulder, R. (2021). ICD-11 personality disorders: Utility and implications of the new model. Frontiers in Psychiatry. Full text.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2009; current online recommendations). Borderline personality disorder: Recognition and management (CG78). NICE recommendations.
Sellbom, M., Brown, T. A., & Bach, B. (2024). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Personality Disorder Severity ICD-11 (PDS-ICD-11) Clinician-Rating Form. Personality and Mental Health, 18, 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1596.
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. WHO publication, ISBN 9789240077263.
World Health Organization. (2026 release). ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics, personality disorder and related codes. WHO ICD-11 browser.