Is “Neurotic” an Outdated Term? Clinical History and Everyday Use
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
“Neurotic” is outdated as a stand-alone clinical label, but it is not an obsolete English word. Modern diagnostic systems do not define a disorder called “being neurotic,” a “neurotic person,” or “neurotic behavior.” At the same time, people still use neurotic in ordinary conversation to mean unusually worried, tense, preoccupied, emotionally reactive, or difficult to reassure. The result is a word that remains socially recognizable while being clinically imprecise.
That distinction resolves most of the confusion around the question “Is neurotic outdated?” If the word is being used as though it were a diagnosis, the language is outdated. If it is being used as a casual adjective, the word is still current, but it is broad enough to hide very different psychological realities. If the intended concept is neuroticism, the modern personality-science term is neuroticism, not a diagnosis of “a neurotic.” If the intended concept is neurosis, the discussion has moved into historical and theory-specific territory.
The American Psychiatric Association describes DSM-5-TR as the current diagnostic classification used to define recognized mental disorders and emphasizes that diagnostic criteria are intended for trained professionals using clinical judgment. The World Health Organization’s ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements likewise provides current clinical guidance for mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental disorders. Neither framework turns the everyday adjective “neurotic” into a diagnosis.
Quick Answer: Is “Neurotic” an Outdated Term?
In clinical diagnosis, yes: “neurotic” is outdated when it is used as a stand-alone diagnostic label for a person or behavior. In everyday English, no: the adjective remains in active use. Cambridge Dictionary, for example, still records contemporary anxious, worried, nervous, or unusual-behavior senses of the word. A dictionary documents usage, however; it does not validate a psychological diagnosis.
The most accurate modern approach is therefore contextual. Describe the concrete behavior or emotional state when that is what you mean. Use neuroticism when you mean the measured personality trait. Use a specific clinical diagnosis only when a qualified assessment supports that diagnosis. Use neurosis when discussing its historical or theory-specific meaning rather than treating it as a current catch-all diagnosis.
For the broader contemporary meaning of the word, see What Does Neurotic Mean? Everyday Meaning, Psychology, and Why the Term Can Mislead. For the person-label itself, see What Is a Neurotic Person? Meaning, Traits, Behavior, and Modern Psychology.
What “Outdated” Means—and What It Does Not Mean
A psychological term can become outdated in one domain while remaining alive in another. Clinical classification, scientific personality research, historical scholarship, psychoanalytic theory, and everyday conversation do not use words under the same rules. Asking whether a word is “outdated” without specifying the domain can therefore produce an answer that is technically correct and still misleading.
For clinical classification, the key question is whether the term names a recognized diagnosis or organizes current diagnostic categories. For everyday language, the key question is whether people still use and understand it. For personality science, the relevant question is whether a defined construct is still measured and researched. For history, the question is what the term meant in a particular period and classification system.
“Neurotic” lands differently in each domain. The old diagnostic architecture of neurosis lost its central position in modern psychiatry. The everyday adjective survived. Neuroticism developed into a modern dimensional trait construct. Historical and theory-specific uses remain important for reading older literature accurately. Those facts can coexist without contradiction.
Three Terms That Must Stay Separate: Neurotic, Neuroticism, and Neurosis
Neurotic: an everyday label or context-dependent adjective
In current conversation, neurotic often functions as a judgment about visible behavior: someone worries repeatedly, checks again, asks for reassurance, reacts strongly to uncertainty, becomes tense when plans change, or seems preoccupied with possible problems. The word does not contain a standardized threshold, duration requirement, severity rule, or differential diagnosis. Two observers can use it differently for the same person.
Because the adjective is unstandardized, it can describe a moment, a recurring habit, a relationship dynamic, a work style, an emotional reaction, or a global impression of a person. That flexibility explains why it remains useful in conversation and why it performs poorly as clinical language.
Neuroticism: a measurable personality trait
Neuroticism is a different construct. In personality research, it refers to relatively stable individual differences in the tendency to experience negative emotional responses to threat, frustration, or loss. Lahey’s review in American Psychologist describes neuroticism in those dimensional terms: people vary along a continuum rather than falling into a diagnostic category of “neurotics.”
That does not mean a person casually called neurotic has been shown to have high neuroticism. Everyday labels are not psychometric assessments. A remark such as “he is neurotic about deadlines” may describe one narrow situation, whereas a neuroticism measure is intended to characterize a broader pattern within a defined personality model. The English Hub comparison Neurotic vs Neuroticism: Everyday Label vs Big Five Personality Trait develops that distinction in detail.
Neurosis: a historical and theory-dependent clinical concept
Neurosis is the historical term that sits behind much of the modern confusion. Its meanings changed across periods, schools, and diagnostic systems. At different times it functioned as a broad category, a psychodynamic concept, a contrast with psychosis, and part of names for more specific conditions. That history belongs to the separate Neurosis cluster; here, only the milestones needed to understand today’s language are relevant.
The practical rule is simple: neurotic, neuroticism, and neurosis share linguistic ancestry, but they do not have interchangeable meanings in modern psychology.
Why Clinical Language Moved Away From “Neurosis”
The change was not a single deletion on a single date across the whole world. It was a gradual reorganization of psychiatric classification, and the timing differed between systems. That history matters because simplified online explanations often say “neurosis was removed in 1980” as if every diagnostic system everywhere changed at once.
In the United States, DSM-III, published in 1980, represented a major shift toward explicit diagnostic criteria and an approach intended to be more neutral about the causes of mental disorders. The American Psychiatric Association’s DSM history describes those innovations. Historical analyses by Bayer and Spitzer document the controversy surrounding the place of neurosis in DSM-III, while Frances and colleagues describe how DSM-III dropped neurosis as an organizing principle in the classification of anxiety disorders.
One reason for the shift was that broad neurotic categories could carry multiple, partly incompatible meanings. A classic example is “neurotic depression.” Klerman and colleagues identified multiple meanings of that label and found insufficient overlap to treat them as interchangeable, recommending that the term no longer be used clinically because of its vagueness. The lesson is wider than depression: a familiar word can become diagnostically unhelpful when different clinicians use it to mean different things.
The reorganization also created more specific categories. Crocq’s historical review of generalized anxiety disorder notes that DSM-III split the older “anxiety neurosis” concept into generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder. That does not mean every person once described as neurotic would now receive one of those diagnoses. It means the classification system changed the units it used to describe clinical presentations.
For a fuller account of this transition, the English Hub’s Neurosis cluster owns The Rise and Fall of Neurosis: Why Psychiatry Abandoned the Umbrella Diagnosis and What Replaced Neurosis? A Guide to the Modern Diagnoses Behind an Old Umbrella Term.
The ICD Story Is More Complicated Than “Neurosis Disappeared in 1980”
DSM history is only one part of the story. The World Health Organization’s ICD-10 retained the word “neurotic” in the title of the F40–F48 block, “Neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders.” That is an important corrective to the common claim that neurotic terminology vanished from formal classification everywhere when DSM-III appeared.
ICD-11 is now the WHO standard for health reporting, and WHO’s 2024 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements provides the current clinical manual for mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental disorders. The contemporary system uses more specific diagnostic groupings and requirements rather than a clinical identity called “a neurotic person.”
This difference between DSM and ICD timelines explains why older papers, records, and databases can contain “neurotic” terminology long after DSM-III. Historical presence in medical literature does not make the everyday label a current diagnosis. The separate English Hub article Neurotic Disorders in Medical Literature: Why the Term Still Appears in Databases and Older Research covers that archival problem directly.
What DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 Mean for the Word “Neurotic” Today
Modern diagnosis works through defined disorders, symptoms, duration, context, distress, impairment, exclusions, and clinical judgment. The APA explicitly describes DSM diagnostic criteria as tools for trained professionals rather than self-diagnosis checklists. WHO likewise describes the ICD-11 CDDR as a manual supporting accurate and reliable identification and diagnosis in clinical settings.
That makes “neurotic” insufficient as a diagnosis in several ways. It does not identify which symptoms are present. It does not specify how long they have lasted. It does not show whether the pattern causes clinically significant distress or impairment. It does not distinguish a personality trait from a state. It does not rule out another mental disorder, a medical condition, medication effects, substance effects, sleep deprivation, acute stress, or a normal response to circumstances.
The phrase can still be useful as the beginning of a question. “I feel neurotic lately” may communicate that something about worry, tension, control, or emotional reactivity has intensified. The clinical task is to unpack that statement rather than convert it into a diagnosis called neurotic.
Why the Everyday Word Survived
Everyday language does not update on the same schedule as diagnostic manuals. Words survive because they are compact, vivid, socially recognizable, and useful for describing impressions. “Neurotic” can compress a bundle of observations into one adjective: worry, overthinking, checking, sensitivity, perfectionistic concern, self-doubt, irritability, or difficulty letting uncertainty remain unresolved.
Cambridge Dictionary’s current entries demonstrate that the word is still understood in contemporary English, including anxious or worried senses. That continuing usage is evidence that the word is not obsolete as vocabulary. It is not evidence that the word has clinical precision.
This difference between lexical survival and clinical validity is the core answer to the search query. “Neurotic” can be current English and outdated diagnostic language at the same time.
Is “Neurotic” Offensive or Stigmatizing?
The answer depends on context, tone, relationship, and how the word is being used. Some people use “I’m neurotic about travel plans” playfully and self-descriptively. The same word can feel dismissive when another person uses it to reduce distress, anxiety, checking, sensitivity, or conflict to a personality flaw.
The Mental Health Foundation has specifically described “neurotic” as outdated and stigmatizing in mental-health communication. That is a language and stigma position, not a diagnostic study, and it is useful for exactly that limited purpose: it shows why many mental-health communicators prefer more specific, less identity-reducing wording.
Calling a person “a neurotic” is especially reductive because the noun turns a vague behavioral impression into an identity category. Describing the observable pattern usually carries more information and less judgment: “she has been worrying about the result all week,” “he checks the lock repeatedly when stressed,” “they ask for reassurance during conflict,” or “I become very self-critical after mistakes.”
The future English Hub article Is “Neurotic” Offensive? Stigma, Everyday Use, and Better Mental Health Language owns the full stigma-language intent. Until that page is live, this article keeps the point narrow: language can affect whether a person feels described, judged, or dismissed, so precision is usually preferable.
The Word “Neurotic” Can Point to Several Different Psychological Statuses
A major source of error is treating one everyday adjective as though it identified one stable psychological fact. The same word can refer to at least eight different levels of description. They should not be collapsed into one another.
1. An everyday label
Someone says “neurotic” because another person seems overly worried, tense, controlling, sensitive, preoccupied, or difficult to reassure. This is a social description. It has no standardized threshold and may reveal as much about the observer’s expectations as about the person being described.
2. A behavior pattern
The speaker may be noticing a repeated pattern such as checking, reassurance seeking, avoidance, overpreparing, replaying conversations, or trying to control uncertainty. A behavior pattern can be studied or changed without declaring that it belongs to a disorder. The English Hub article Neurotic Behavior: Meaning, Examples, and What It Does Not Diagnose keeps that distinction explicit.
3. An emotional state
A person can become unusually tense, worried, irritable, self-conscious, or emotionally reactive during a stressful period without showing a stable personality trait and without meeting criteria for a disorder. States change with context. A difficult week, conflict, sleep loss, uncertainty, illness, or major transition can amplify reactions temporarily.
4. A personality trait
The intended meaning may be neuroticism, a measured personality dimension. Even then, the precise statement is “higher neuroticism on a particular measure,” not “this person is a neurotic.” Trait scores are dimensional and do not establish a diagnosis.
5. A symptom
Worry, intrusive thoughts, tension, irritability, sleep difficulty, concentration problems, avoidance, or repeated checking can be symptoms in some contexts. A symptom is not automatically a disorder. Its diagnostic significance depends on the broader pattern, duration, severity, context, impairment, exclusions, and the criteria of a specific condition.
6. A risk factor
Research may identify a trait or pattern as statistically associated with later outcomes. A risk factor changes probability; it does not determine what an individual has or will develop. Neuroticism, for example, has been associated with multiple mental and physical health outcomes in research, but that evidence belongs to the construct neuroticism and cannot be transferred automatically to everyone casually called neurotic.
7. A screening result
A questionnaire can identify elevated symptoms or a personality score, depending on what it was designed to measure. Screening does not equal diagnosis. A high score on an anxiety screener, a distress scale, or a personality inventory answers a different question from “Am I neurotic?”
8. A diagnosis or clinical disorder
A diagnosis requires a defined clinical framework. “Neurotic person” and “neurotic behavior” do not supply one. If a person has clinically significant symptoms, the relevant question is which recognized condition, if any, best accounts for them after proper assessment.
What to Say Instead of “Neurotic”
Better wording starts by identifying what is actually observable. If the issue is worry, say the person is worrying frequently or finding it hard to disengage from worry. If the issue is reassurance, say they repeatedly seek reassurance when uncertain. If the issue is checking, describe what is being checked and under what conditions. If the issue is emotional reactivity, describe the trigger and response rather than turning the response into an identity.
If the issue is perfectionistic concern, describe unusually high standards, fear of mistakes, or repeated reviewing. If the issue is rumination, describe repetitive dwelling on past events or perceived mistakes. If the issue is intolerance of uncertainty, describe difficulty leaving questions unresolved. If the issue is insecurity in a relationship, describe the specific fears, behaviors, and interaction cycle.
These alternatives are not diagnoses either. Their advantage is precision. They create a path toward the right psychological construct or clinical question instead of ending the inquiry with a label.
If the concern is primarily anxiety, the article Neurotic Anxiety: What the Phrase Means and What Modern Psychology Calls It Instead explains why the old phrase should be translated into specific contemporary concepts rather than treated as a disorder called neurotic anxiety.
Does “Neurotic” Just Mean Anxious?
Anxiety is one of the most common everyday meanings, but the words are not synonyms. Someone may use “neurotic” for worry, yet another speaker may mean perfectionistic checking, emotional sensitivity, irritability, self-consciousness, rigid planning, reassurance seeking, jealousy, or preoccupation. Some of those patterns can involve anxiety; others may be better understood differently.
Anxiety itself also operates at several levels. It can be a normal emotion, a transient state, a symptom, a dimension on a questionnaire, or part of a diagnosed anxiety disorder. Calling all of those possibilities “neurotic” makes the description less precise, not more.
For that reason, “neurotic” should not be used as a shortcut for diagnosing generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, OCD, or any other specific condition. Those clusters own their own diagnostic criteria, differential diagnosis, and treatment evidence.
Why “Neurotic” Is Not the Same as “Mentally Ill”
Everyday speech sometimes uses “neurotic” as though it means a person has a mental illness. That inference is not justified. A person can worry, overthink, seek reassurance, dislike uncertainty, become self-critical, or react strongly to stress without meeting criteria for a mental disorder.
Clinical diagnosis depends on the defined syndrome and its requirements, not on whether another person finds someone’s behavior excessive. The APA’s description of DSM-5-TR emphasizes criteria, exclusions, and trained clinical judgment. WHO’s ICD-11 CDDR likewise exists to support reliable identification of defined disorders. A colloquial adjective cannot substitute for that process.
The reverse inference is also unsafe: a person who is never described as neurotic can still have a mental health condition. Everyday social labels are neither sensitive nor specific diagnostic tools.
Why “Neurotic” Is Not the Same as High Neuroticism
The similarity of the words creates one of the most persistent errors in online psychology. Neuroticism is a trait construct with measurement traditions and a research literature. “Neurotic” is an everyday adjective whose meaning changes by speaker and situation. It is possible for the two to overlap, but overlap is not identity.
A person might score relatively high on neuroticism and never be called neurotic by people around them. Another person might be called neurotic because of one visible habit while scoring differently on a broader personality measure. Research about neuroticism should therefore be reported as research about neuroticism unless a study actually measured the everyday label—which is unusual.
This boundary also matters for claims about genetics, lifespan development, physical health, relationships, work, creativity, intelligence, and treatment. Those are questions for the future Neuroticism cluster when the evidence is about measured neuroticism. They should not be back-projected onto a person merely because someone used a colloquial adjective.
Why Older Clinical Literature Still Uses “Neurotic”
Older literature can preserve terminology for decades because scientific databases index historical titles and classifications rather than rewriting them into modern language. A 1979 article called “Neurotic depressions,” for example, is evidence about how researchers defined and debated a category at that time. It does not establish “neurotic depression” as a current diagnosis.
The same principle applies to older records, textbooks, case histories, and psychoanalytic writing. Terms must be interpreted in the conceptual system in which they were used. Modern readers can translate the clinical question into current terminology without pretending that the older author meant a present-day DSM or ICD diagnosis.
Historical continuity of a word is therefore different from current diagnostic status. Search engines often place old and new sources together, which can make a retired clinical category look more current than it is.
Can a Clinician Still Use the Word “Neurotic”?
A clinician can encounter or use the word in several legitimate contexts: discussing a patient’s own language, quoting historical material, explaining a psychoanalytic or historical concept, or clarifying the difference between an everyday label and a current diagnosis. The key issue is whether the listener could mistake the term for a recognized diagnosis.
For ordinary clinical communication, specific contemporary language is usually more informative. If the concern is generalized worry, panic attacks, compulsions, trauma-related symptoms, depressed mood, bodily distress, personality functioning, or another pattern, naming the actual phenomenon supports clearer assessment and treatment planning.
This is why the question “Is neurotic outdated?” should not be answered with a blanket ban on the word. The clinically useful answer is contextual: historical and explanatory use can be accurate; diagnostic person-labeling is imprecise; everyday use remains common; neuroticism remains a separate scientific term.
What If Someone Calls You “Neurotic”?
The most useful response is to translate the label into a concrete question. What exactly are they noticing? Frequent worry? Repeated checking? Reassurance seeking? Strong reactions to criticism? Overpreparing? Difficulty tolerating uncertainty? A need for control when stressed? The answer may reveal a solvable interaction pattern, a temporary stress response, or a mental health concern that deserves proper assessment.
If you use the label about yourself, the same translation helps. Instead of asking only “Am I neurotic?”, ask what happens, when it happens, how often, what triggers it, what you do in response, whether it brings short-term relief, and whether it interferes with sleep, work, relationships, health, or daily functioning.
The English Hub article Am I Neurotic? How to Understand the Label Without Self-Diagnosing is designed for that self-reflective intent. It keeps self-observation separate from diagnosis.
When the Underlying Pattern Deserves Clinical Attention
The fact that “neurotic” is not a diagnosis does not mean distress should be dismissed. Persistent worry, panic, intrusive thoughts, compulsive behavior, avoidance, depressed mood, severe self-criticism, sleep disruption, substance use, or other symptoms can become clinically significant when they are persistent, intense, impairing, or difficult to manage.
In that situation, assessment should focus on the actual symptoms and their context. A clinician may consider anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive and related disorders, depressive disorders, trauma- and stress-related conditions, personality functioning, medical contributors, medication or substance effects, and other explanations depending on the presentation. The point is not to replace one vague label with a different speculative label; it is to identify the relevant clinical question.
Treatment also follows the underlying construct or diagnosed condition. There is no evidence-based treatment protocol for a diagnosis called “being neurotic” because that is not a diagnosis. Psychotherapy, medication, behavioral strategies, or other interventions should be selected for the specific problem they are intended to address.
A Practical Language Rule for Everyday Conversation
If “neurotic” is being used casually and everyone understands the intended meaning, the word may function as ordinary shorthand. If precision matters—especially in mental health, relationships, work, education, or healthcare—replace the shorthand with the specific behavior, emotion, trait, symptom, or diagnosis that is actually supported.
A useful sequence is: everyday label → what the speaker actually means → concrete pattern or psychological construct → context and severity → evidence → alternative explanations → practical implications. That sequence preserves the information people are trying to communicate without turning a loose adjective into a clinical identity.
The label becomes least useful when it ends the conversation: “She is just neurotic.” It becomes more useful when it opens a question: “When I say neurotic, I mean she becomes very worried by uncertainty and asks for reassurance repeatedly. What might that pattern represent?”
Frequently Asked Questions
Is “neurotic” still a diagnosis?
No. “Neurotic,” “neurotic person,” and “neurotic behavior” are not stand-alone modern diagnoses. DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 organize mental disorders through defined diagnostic categories and requirements, not through a diagnosis of “being neurotic.”
Is neuroticism outdated?
No. Neuroticism remains a current personality trait construct. The important distinction is that neuroticism is measured dimensionally in personality research, whereas “neurotic” in everyday speech is an unstandardized adjective. A casual label does not establish a neuroticism score.
Is neurosis still used in psychology?
The term remains important historically and can still appear in theory-specific literature, but it no longer functions as the broad organizing diagnosis it once did in DSM. The modern diagnostic landscape uses more specific categories. The separate Neurosis cluster owns the full historical and theoretical account.
What replaced neurosis?
There was no one-to-one replacement. Older neurosis categories were reorganized into multiple modern diagnostic areas. For example, historical “anxiety neurosis” was split in DSM-III into generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder, while other older neurotic concepts followed different paths. The correct modern term depends on the actual presentation.
Is it offensive to call someone neurotic?
It can be, especially when it dismisses distress or turns a behavior into a negative identity. Some people also use the word casually or self-deprecatingly without intending harm. Because meaning depends on context, the safer and more informative choice in mental-health communication is usually to describe the specific pattern.
Does neurotic mean anxious?
Sometimes, but not exactly. Anxiety is a common everyday meaning, yet “neurotic” can also be used for overthinking, checking, perfectionistic concern, emotional reactivity, self-doubt, rigidity, or other behaviors. Anxiety itself can be a normal emotion, a symptom, or part of a disorder.
Is “neurotic behavior” a medical term?
It appears in historical and informal writing, but it is not a stand-alone modern diagnosis. A behavior should be described directly and, if clinically relevant, evaluated within the appropriate contemporary construct or disorder.
Can someone be high in neuroticism without having a mental disorder?
Yes. Neuroticism is a personality dimension, not a diagnosis. Higher neuroticism is associated at the population level with a range of mental and physical health outcomes, but association and risk are not the same as an individual diagnosis.
Why does “neurotic” still appear in medical databases?
Databases preserve historical literature, older terminology, indexing terms, and articles published under previous classification systems. Search visibility therefore reflects the history of a concept as well as current practice. A historical article title is not evidence that the same label remains a current diagnosis.
Should I stop using the word “neurotic”?
There is no universal rule for ordinary conversation. The useful rule is precision: when the word risks being taken as a diagnosis, a fixed identity, or a judgment about mental illness, replace it with the actual behavior, emotional state, personality construct, symptom, or clinically established diagnosis.
Can medication treat “being neurotic”?
There is no medication indication for a diagnosis called “being neurotic.” Medication may be appropriate for specific diagnosed conditions when supported by clinical guidelines and an individual assessment. The treatment target should be the actual condition or symptom pattern, not the colloquial label.
Related Articles
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). American Psychiatric Association Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787
American Psychiatric Association. About DSM-5-TR. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/about-dsm
American Psychiatric Association. DSM History. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/about-dsm/history-of-the-dsm
Bayer, R., & Spitzer, R. L. (1985). Neurosis, psychodynamics, and DSM-III: A history of the controversy. Archives of General Psychiatry, 42(2), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1985.01790250081011
Cambridge Dictionary. Neurotic. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/neurotic
Crocq, M.-A. (2017). The history of generalized anxiety disorder as a diagnostic category. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 19(2), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2017.19.2/macrocq
Frances, A., Miele, G. M., Widiger, T. A., Pincus, H. A., Manning, D., & Davis, W. W. (1993). The classification of panic disorders: From Freud to DSM-IV. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 27(Suppl 1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3956(93)90013-R
Klerman, G. L., Endicott, J., Spitzer, R., & Hirschfeld, R. M. (1979). Neurotic depressions: A systematic analysis of multiple criteria and meanings. American Journal of Psychiatry, 136(1), 57–61. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.136.1.57
Lahey, B. B. (2009). Public health significance of neuroticism. American Psychologist, 64(4), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015309
Mental Health Foundation. (2019). Why the language we use to describe mental health matters. https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/explore-mental-health/blogs/why-language-we-use-describe-mental-health-matters
World Health Organization. (2019). ICD-10 Version: 2019. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision. https://icd.who.int/browse10/2019/en
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240077263