Neuroticism and Personality Disorders: Dimensional Traits and Clinical Diagnosis
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Neuroticism and personality disorders are related, but they operate at different levels of psychological description. Neuroticism is a continuous personality dimension: people vary in their general tendency to experience negative emotions, perceive threat or stress, and react strongly to frustration, uncertainty, loss, or interpersonal strain. A personality disorder is a clinical diagnosis involving a persistent pattern of personality dysfunction and maladaptive traits that causes clinically meaningful impairment or distress. High neuroticism can be part of a personality-disorder profile, but a neuroticism score cannot diagnose a personality disorder.
The distinction is especially important because modern personality-disorder classification itself has become more dimensional. The DSM-5-TR Alternative Model for Personality Disorders describes personality pathology using impairment in self and interpersonal functioning together with pathological trait domains, including Negative Affectivity. The World Health Organization's ICD-11 clinical diagnostic requirements likewise classify personality disorder primarily by severity and allow prominent trait domains such as Negative Affectivity to be specified. These systems bring clinical classification closer to dimensional personality science without turning ordinary variation in neuroticism into a diagnosis.
This article answers one specific question: how does the Big Five construct of neuroticism relate to personality disorders? It does not replace diagnosis-specific guidance, and it does not treat the everyday label “neurotic” as a clinical category. For the basic personality-science construct, start with Neuroticism: What It Is in the Big Five Personality Model. For the broader relationship between neuroticism and psychopathology, see Neuroticism and Mental Health: Why the Trait Is a Transdiagnostic Risk Factor.
Neuroticism and Personality Disorders: The Short Answer
Research has repeatedly found that neuroticism is associated with personality pathology, but the association is broad rather than diagnostically specific. In a major meta-analysis of Five-Factor Model research, Saulsman and Page found that higher neuroticism and lower agreeableness were among the most consistent broad-domain correlates across multiple DSM personality disorders. A later facet-level meta-analysis by Samuel and Widiger showed that Five-Factor profiles can describe personality disorders in more differentiated ways, while also documenting important exceptions and instrument-specific findings.
The practical meaning is simple. Neuroticism contributes information about emotional vulnerability, but it does not identify one particular personality disorder. Some personality-disorder presentations are strongly characterized by anxiety, shame, emotional lability, rejection sensitivity, dysphoria, anger, or stress vulnerability. Others are organized more strongly around antagonism, detachment, disinhibition, anankastia, psychoticism-like traits, or impairments in identity and relationships. The same neuroticism level can therefore appear in very different clinical profiles.
A high neuroticism score is also neither a positive diagnostic screen nor evidence of “personality pathology” by itself. The meaning of any score depends on the instrument, scoring method, normative sample, population, and purpose of assessment. Big Five measures describe personality variation. Clinical diagnosis requires a different evidentiary step: evaluating persistent dysfunction, severity, context, impairment, developmental course, differential diagnosis, and the pattern of maladaptive traits.
Two Levels of Description: Personality Trait and Clinical Diagnosis
Neuroticism is a dimensional personality construct
In contemporary personality science, neuroticism is one of the broad dimensions commonly represented in the Big Five or Five-Factor Model. It summarizes a tendency toward more frequent or intense negative emotional experiences and greater reactivity to stress. Lower neuroticism is often described as greater emotional stability. The dimension is continuous: there is no scientifically universal line that divides the population into “neurotic” and “non-neurotic” people.
Different instruments operationalize this territory differently. The NEO PI-R uses Neuroticism as a domain with six named facets; the NEO-FFI provides a shorter domain-level measure; the BFI-2 uses the label Negative Emotionality and organizes it with its own facet structure; IPIP inventories provide open-access scales with varying item sets; and Eysenck measures arise from a different personality model. These instruments overlap, but their raw scores and percentiles are not interchangeable. See Neuroticism Test: What It Measures and How to Interpret Results and NEO PI-R Neuroticism: Six Facets, Scoring, and Interpretation for instrument-specific interpretation.
A personality disorder is a clinical construct
A personality-disorder diagnosis addresses enduring maladaptive patterns and their consequences for self-functioning, relationships, behavior, and life participation. The diagnosis is not obtained by locating a person at the high end of one ordinary personality dimension. In DSM-5-TR, the traditional Section II system remains available, while the Section III Alternative Model for Personality Disorders combines impairment in personality functioning with pathological personality traits. In ICD-11, WHO's 2024 clinical diagnostic requirements organize personality disorder around severity and trait-domain qualifiers.
Recent reviews describe this as part of a larger shift from purely categorical thinking toward dimensional description. Widiger and Smith's 2025 review characterizes personality disorders as being at the forefront of this transition, while also emphasizing unresolved questions about severity, trait coverage, cutoffs, and clinical implementation. Dimensional classification does not erase diagnosis; it changes what information is used to describe the pathology.
What Five-Factor Research Shows About Personality Disorders
The Five-Factor Model offers a common language for comparing personality-disorder presentations. Instead of treating each diagnosis as a completely separate kind of person, researchers can ask how a given clinical presentation is distributed across neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, and then examine narrower facets. This makes overlap visible. It also explains why people sharing a categorical diagnosis can still have meaningfully different personality profiles.
The classic Saulsman and Page meta-analysis synthesized 15 independent samples linking the Big Five to the DSM-IV personality disorders. Broadly, neuroticism tended to be positively associated with personality pathology, and agreeableness tended to be negatively associated across several diagnoses. Extraversion, conscientiousness, and their facets added differentiation across disorders. The authors' central result was not that neuroticism “is” personality disorder, but that categorical personality disorders can be translated, imperfectly, into configurations of general personality traits.
The Samuel and Widiger facet-level meta-analysis refined that picture. Empirical Five-Factor profiles were generally congruent with theoretical translations of DSM-IV-TR personality disorders, yet the study also found notable exceptions and findings that depended on the instrument used. Facets improved descriptive resolution because two disorders can share elevated neuroticism while differing in anger, self-consciousness, impulsivity, vulnerability, detachment, antagonism, or conscientiousness-related tendencies.
Longitudinal evidence also argues against collapsing trait and diagnosis into one construct. In a ten-year comparison of personality-pathology models, Morey and colleagues found that Five-Factor traits and personality-disorder syndromes each predicted important long-term outcomes and frequently provided incremental information relative to one another. Models integrating normal-range traits with personality pathology tended to perform particularly well. This is exactly what would be expected if neuroticism captures a meaningful dimension of risk and style while clinical personality pathology adds information about maladaptation and dysfunction.
Why High Neuroticism Does Not Diagnose a Personality Disorder
Neuroticism is nonspecific
Elevated neuroticism occurs across many forms of psychological difficulty and also among people who do not have a mental disorder. It is therefore a broad marker of emotional vulnerability rather than a disorder-specific sign. The English Hub overview Neuroticism and Mental Health: Why the Trait Is a Transdiagnostic Risk Factor covers this broader transdiagnostic evidence. In personality disorders, the same nonspecificity remains: several different clinical patterns can include high negative emotionality.
Diagnosis requires dysfunction and clinical context
Personality-disorder assessment asks whether a persistent pattern of personality functioning and traits is maladaptive enough to meet diagnostic requirements. The DSM-5-TR AMPD explicitly combines personality-functioning impairment with pathological traits rather than diagnosing on traits alone. Hopwood and colleagues found empirical support for this hybrid logic: pathological traits and a general indicator of personality pathology each contributed information about personality disorders.
ICD-11 makes the distinction even more visible because the core diagnosis is graded by severity, after which prominent trait domains can be specified. Swales describes the system as acknowledging dimensional personality while still requiring categorical clinical decisions about whether personality disorder is present and how severe it is. A high Negative Affectivity qualifier is descriptive within an already established clinical formulation; it is not itself the diagnosis.
Other personality dimensions matter
A person can have clinically important personality pathology with only modest neuroticism if other domains dominate the presentation. Antagonism or dissociality may be central to some patterns; detachment may organize others; disinhibition may be prominent in impulsive or irresponsible patterns; anankastia may organize rigid perfectionism and control; psychoticism-like traits may matter in schizotypal presentations within the DSM-5-TR alternative framework. The DSM-5-TR AMPD and the ICD-11 framework make these multidimensional profiles explicit.
The same diagnosis can contain different trait profiles
Categorical diagnoses are heterogeneous. Two people can meet criteria for the same personality disorder through partly different combinations of features, and they can differ in neuroticism, antagonism, detachment, disinhibition, or other traits. This heterogeneity is one reason dimensional models have attracted so much research interest. It also prevents a one-to-one translation such as “high neuroticism equals borderline personality disorder” or “low neuroticism rules out personality disorder.”
How Dimensional Models Changed Personality-Disorder Science
DSM-5-TR: the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders
DSM-5-TR preserves the familiar categorical personality-disorder system in Section II and includes the AMPD in Section III. According to the official DSM-5-TR AMPD chapter, the alternative model defines personality disorder through impairments in personality functioning and pathological personality traits. The five broad pathological trait domains are Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Antagonism, Disinhibition, and Psychoticism.
Negative Affectivity is conceptually close to the high-neuroticism end of general personality, but the two should not be treated as identical scores. The AMPD uses pathological facets designed for clinical personality assessment, whereas a Big Five inventory is designed to characterize general personality variation. A person can score high on a normative neuroticism scale without satisfying AMPD requirements for personality disorder, because the diagnosis also requires impairment in personality functioning and the appropriate clinical pattern.
The trait model has accumulated a substantial research literature. Clark and Watson's structural review describes strong similarity between the AMPD trait domains and the established Five-Factor Model while also identifying structural complications, cross-loading facets, and gaps in trait coverage. A 2025 review by Sharp and colleagues concluded that the AMPD has substantial evidence concerning validity, reliability, and clinical utility, while making a case for further revision. Those conclusions support dimensional assessment; they do not turn a Big Five neuroticism score into an AMPD diagnosis.
ICD-11: severity first, then trait qualifiers
ICD-11 uses a different architecture. The WHO clinical diagnostic manual classifies personality disorder by severity—mild, moderate, or severe—and allows clinicians to specify prominent Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Dissociality, Disinhibition, and Anankastia traits, with a Borderline pattern qualifier also available. This structure deliberately separates the presence and severity of personality disorder from the descriptive trait profile.
Research supports meaningful continuity between the DSM-5 pathological trait system and the emerging ICD-11 trait domains. In psychiatric outpatients, Bach and colleagues found that ICD-11 and DSM-5 trait domains captured substantial information associated with categorical personality disorders, while each system also had distinctive strengths. Bach and First likewise illustrated how the ICD-11 approach is applied clinically, emphasizing severity and trait description rather than a simple one-trait diagnosis.
Research frameworks go even further dimensionally
The move toward dimensions is not limited to DSM and ICD. The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) organizes psychopathology hierarchically and dimensionally, partly to address heterogeneity, comorbidity, and arbitrary boundaries in traditional categories. HiTOP is a research framework rather than the governing diagnostic manual used by clinicians. Its relevance here is conceptual: broad temperament and personality dimensions can help explain why diagnostic categories overlap, but dimensional structure and clinical diagnosis remain distinct questions.
Neuroticism and Negative Affectivity: Closely Related, Not Interchangeable
The phrase “negative affectivity” is used in more than one psychological tradition, which creates a common source of confusion. In general personality models, BFI-2 Negative Emotionality occupies territory similar to what many Five-Factor instruments call Neuroticism. In DSM-5-TR AMPD and ICD-11 personality-disorder classification, Negative Affectivity is a maladaptive trait domain used inside clinical personality models. These constructs overlap substantially, but the instruments, item content, facet structure, score distributions, and intended decisions differ.
An item-response analysis by Suzuki and colleagues compared PID-5 pathological traits with IPIP-NEO general personality traits in more than 3,500 participants. Four of the five broad domains showed largely overlapping latent structure, while the PID-5 generally provided more information toward more maladaptive extremes. This supports continuity between normal-range and pathological traits, but it also demonstrates why the measurement systems cannot simply be substituted for one another.
The same principle applies inside the English Hub. BFI-2 Negative Emotionality: How It Relates to Neuroticism explains one general-personality instrument. The DSM-5 PID-5 and ICD-11 trait measures answer a different assessment question. A percentile from a BFI-2 or NEO-based test is not an AMPD Negative Affectivity rating and is not an ICD-11 personality-disorder diagnosis.
How Neuroticism Relates to Different Personality-Disorder Presentations
The relationship between neuroticism and personality disorder becomes clearer when disorders are treated as configurations rather than as synonyms for one trait. The following examples illustrate the pattern without substituting for diagnosis-specific articles.
Borderline personality disorder
Borderline personality disorder is one of the clearest examples of substantial overlap with high neuroticism or Negative Affectivity. Emotional lability, anxiousness, separation insecurity, depressivity, anger, and vulnerability under stress all occupy related territory. Yet borderline pathology also involves clinically important patterns of personality functioning, relationships, identity, and behavior that a broad neuroticism score cannot capture. The dedicated article Neuroticism and Borderline Personality Disorder: Trait Models and Clinical Diagnosis examines this relationship in detail.
Avoidant and dependent presentations
Avoidant and dependent personality patterns have historically shown substantial associations with neuroticism in Five-Factor research, consistent with anxiousness, rejection sensitivity, shame, insecurity, and distress. In the DSM-5-TR AMPD, avoidant personality disorder is described using both Negative Affectivity and Detachment-related traits. This demonstrates why the broad domain is informative but incomplete: fear and distress alone do not capture the social withdrawal, intimacy avoidance, dependency, or impairment that organize the clinical presentation.
Paranoid and schizotypal presentations
Paranoid and schizotypal personality pathology can include distress, suspiciousness, and emotional sensitivity, yet their structure cannot be reduced to neuroticism. Detachment, antagonistic or suspicious interpersonal styles, and—particularly in schizotypal pathology—unusual cognitive-perceptual features matter. The older Five-Factor literature generally found positive associations between neuroticism and these conditions, but the more diagnostic information often came from configurations across multiple domains and facets rather than neuroticism alone.
Antisocial and narcissistic presentations
Antisocial and narcissistic personality pathology illustrate the limits of treating neuroticism as a universal personality-disorder marker. Antagonism, callousness, deceitfulness, grandiosity, attention seeking, impulsivity, or disinhibition may be more central in particular presentations. Negative Affectivity can still be present, especially in more emotionally vulnerable forms of narcissistic pathology or in people with substantial comorbidity, but neither high nor low neuroticism by itself establishes these diagnoses. This heterogeneity is why the relationship between neuroticism and narcissism requires presentation-specific interpretation rather than a generic assumption that all narcissistic pathology is highly neurotic.
Obsessive-compulsive personality patterns
Obsessive-compulsive personality pathology also shows why trait configuration matters. Rigid perfectionism, persistence, control, and anankastic traits are central territory, and anxiousness or other negative affectivity may be present without defining the whole pattern. ICD-11's separate Anankastia domain and the DSM-5-TR AMPD's emphasis on rigid perfectionism make this distinction especially visible. Neuroticism may add emotional context, but it is not the organizing diagnostic dimension.
Measurement: What a Neuroticism Score Can and Cannot Tell You
A scientifically responsible interpretation begins by naming the measure. “My neuroticism score is high” is incomplete information unless the instrument, scoring method, normative comparison, and population are known. The NEO PI-R, NEO-FFI, BFI-2, IPIP-based inventories, and Eysenck questionnaires differ in item content and model structure. A raw score of 30, a T score of 65, and an 85th percentile are not interchangeable statements.
The same is true when moving from general personality to pathological-trait measures. PID-5 scores belong to the DSM-5 AMPD trait system; an ICD-11 trait instrument belongs to the ICD-11 framework; a NEO or BFI score belongs to a normative personality model. Even when two scales both refer to negative emotionality, their thresholds, facets, norms, and intended inferences differ. Suzuki and colleagues provide direct psychometric evidence for continuity combined with different measurement precision across the trait range.
A Big Five result can therefore describe a person's relative standing on a personality dimension and, in research, can contribute to probabilistic understanding of vulnerability. It cannot establish personality-disorder severity, determine whether impairment is pervasive, distinguish a long-standing trait from a temporary symptomatic state, rule out other explanations, or replace a structured clinical assessment. For score interpretation, see What Is a High Neuroticism Score? Percentiles, Norms, and Test Differences.
Association, Vulnerability, and Cause Are Different Claims
The fact that neuroticism and personality disorders correlate does not tell us that neuroticism directly causes a personality disorder. Correlation can arise from partially shared dispositions, overlapping item content, common developmental influences, reciprocal effects, current symptoms affecting self-report, or a third variable influencing both traits and pathology. Cross-sectional Five-Factor studies are especially useful for structural description, but they cannot by themselves identify causal pathways.
Longitudinal research strengthens some inferences while preserving this limit. Morey and colleagues showed that personality traits and personality-disorder constructs each have meaningful long-term predictive validity and often add information beyond the other. That supports a layered model in which normal-range personality and personality pathology are related over time without becoming the same variable.
The dimensional literature therefore supports language such as “associated with,” “characteristic of,” “risk-related,” or “descriptively overlapping” when the evidence warrants it. Statements such as “high neuroticism means you have a personality disorder” or “neuroticism causes personality disorder” go beyond what these studies establish.
What Trait Information Can Add to Clinical Assessment
Trait information can be clinically useful when it is interpreted as one layer of a broader assessment. A dimensional profile can clarify whether distress tends to take the form of anxiousness, emotional lability, hostility, withdrawal, impulsivity, rigid perfectionism, antagonism, or another pattern. It can help describe differences between people who share the same categorical diagnosis and similarities across people who have different diagnoses.
The AMPD was designed around this logic. Widiger and Hines review the model as an alternative approach in which personality functioning and pathological traits are assessed together. The Sharp and colleagues 2025 review further evaluates its validity, reliability, and clinical utility. Trait assessment is therefore best understood as an added coordinate system for personality pathology, not a shortcut that converts one questionnaire score into a diagnosis.
This also protects against overpathologizing ordinary personality variation. Someone may be temperamentally sensitive, worry-prone, emotionally reactive, self-conscious, or easily stressed and still function well in identity, work, relationships, and daily life. Personality traits become clinically relevant in a diagnostic sense when they participate in a persistent pattern of dysfunction meeting the requirements of the relevant diagnostic framework.
If My Neuroticism Score Is High, Does That Mean I Have a Personality Disorder?
No. A high neuroticism score means that, on the particular instrument and relative to the relevant scoring reference, you were placed higher on a dimension of negative emotionality or emotional reactivity. It does not mean that you meet criteria for a personality disorder, and it does not identify which personality disorder you might have.
The next question is not “Which disorder does my score prove?” but “Is there a persistent pattern of difficulties in self-functioning, relationships, behavior, or life participation that warrants clinical assessment?” If distress or impairment is significant and enduring, a qualified clinician can evaluate the full pattern, including other mental-health conditions, developmental history, context, and differential diagnosis. A personality questionnaire may be one data source within that process.
For the broader boundary between personality traits and psychiatric diagnosis, see Is Neuroticism a Disorder? DSM-5-TR, ICD-11, and Personality Science.
Key Distinctions
Neuroticism is a normal-range dimensional personality construct. Personality disorder is a clinical diagnosis. Negative Affectivity in DSM-5-TR AMPD or ICD-11 is a maladaptive trait domain used inside a clinical framework. Negative affect is a more state-like or experiential construct and should not automatically be treated as a personality trait. Trait anxiety is narrower than broad neuroticism. Psychiatric symptoms can raise distress and sometimes influence self-report, but symptom severity is not identical to personality-trait level. Screening results estimate risk or flag possible problems only within validated screening procedures; a Big Five neuroticism score is not, by itself, a personality-disorder screen.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is neuroticism a personality disorder?
No. Neuroticism is a broad personality dimension. Personality disorders are clinical conditions defined through persistent maladaptive functioning and trait patterns. The two are statistically related because neuroticism can form part of several personality-disorder profiles.
Which personality disorders are most associated with high neuroticism?
Older Five-Factor meta-analytic research found particularly meaningful associations for borderline, avoidant, and dependent personality pathology, with positive associations also appearing for several other disorders. The size and pattern of associations vary by diagnosis, facet, instrument, sample, and historical diagnostic system. Modern dimensional frameworks therefore emphasize profiles across several traits rather than treating neuroticism as a single diagnostic marker; see Saulsman and Page and Samuel and Widiger.
Is Negative Affectivity the same as neuroticism?
They overlap strongly, but the terms are model- and measure-specific. BFI-2 Negative Emotionality is a general Big Five domain closely related to neuroticism. DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 Negative Affectivity are maladaptive trait domains embedded in clinical personality frameworks. Scores from these systems should not be converted or interpreted as though they came from the same instrument.
Can a Big Five test diagnose a personality disorder?
No. A Big Five test can describe broad personality tendencies. Diagnosis requires clinically appropriate assessment of personality functioning, maladaptive traits, duration, pervasiveness, impairment, context, differential diagnosis, and other relevant conditions. Research shows that Big Five traits contain clinically meaningful information, but they do not exhaust the information contained in personality-disorder assessment.
Does low neuroticism rule out a personality disorder?
No. Some personality-disorder presentations may be organized more strongly around antagonism, dissociality, detachment, disinhibition, anankastia, or psychoticism-like traits. Low or average neuroticism does not establish healthy personality functioning and does not exclude clinically significant pathology.
Is neuroticism used in DSM-5-TR or ICD-11?
The manuals do not diagnose personality disorder by a Big Five neuroticism score. DSM-5-TR's alternative model uses the related pathological domain Negative Affectivity alongside other trait domains and personality-functioning impairment. ICD-11 also includes Negative Affectivity as a trait qualifier after personality disorder and severity have been established.
Does a high neuroticism percentile mean pathology?
No. A percentile describes relative standing within a specific reference distribution. Its meaning depends on the instrument and normative sample. A high percentile can describe an unusual degree of a personality trait without demonstrating clinically significant dysfunction or a mental disorder.
Why do dimensional models matter if clinicians still make diagnoses?
Dimensional models preserve information that categories can obscure. They can describe severity and trait configuration, clarify heterogeneity within a diagnosis, and represent overlap across diagnoses. DSM-5-TR AMPD and ICD-11 use dimensions differently, but both reflect the broader scientific movement toward describing personality pathology in graded terms.
Conclusion
Neuroticism is one of the most important general personality dimensions for understanding personality pathology, but its value comes from dimensional description rather than diagnostic substitution. Higher neuroticism is associated with several personality disorders and can illuminate emotional vulnerability, stress sensitivity, shame, anxiousness, anger, or lability. Yet the trait is broad, nonspecific, and present throughout the general population.
Modern personality-disorder science therefore uses a richer architecture. Five-Factor research describes configurations of normal-range traits; DSM-5-TR's AMPD combines personality-functioning impairment with pathological traits; ICD-11 combines severity with trait qualifiers. Across these systems, one principle remains stable: a personality trait can help explain a clinical profile without becoming the diagnosis itself.
Related Articles
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders. In Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787.Alternate_DSM5_Model_for_Personality_Disorders
Bach, B., & First, M. B. (2018). Application of the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders. BMC Psychiatry, 18, 351. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1908-3
Bach, B., Sellbom, M., Skjernov, M., & Simonsen, E. (2018). ICD-11 and DSM-5 personality trait domains capture categorical personality disorders: Finding a common ground. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 52(5), 425–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867417727867
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000568
Hopwood, C. J., Thomas, K. M., Markon, K. E., Wright, A. G. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2012). DSM-5 personality traits and DSM-IV personality disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121(2), 424–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026656
Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., et al. (2017). The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): A dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126(4), 454–477. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000258
Morey, L. C., Hopwood, C. J., Markowitz, J. C., et al. (2012). Comparison of alternative models for personality disorders, II: 6-, 8- and 10-year follow-up. Psychological Medicine, 42(8), 1705–1713. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291711002601
Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relationships between the five-factor model and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: A facet level analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(8), 1326–1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.07.002
Saulsman, L. M., & Page, A. C. (2004). The five-factor model and personality disorder empirical literature: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 23(8), 1055–1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2002.09.001
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.21339
Suzuki, T., Samuel, D. B., Pahlen, S., & Krueger, R. F. (2015). DSM-5 alternative personality disorder model traits as maladaptive extreme variants of the five-factor model: An item-response theory analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124(2), 343–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000035
Swales, M. A. (2022). Personality Disorder Diagnoses in ICD-11: Transforming Conceptualisations and Practice. Clinical Psychology in Europe, 4(Special Issue), e9635. https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.9635
Widiger, T. A., & Hines, A. (2022). The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition alternative model of personality disorder. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 13(4), 347–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000524
Widiger, T. A., & Smith, M. M. (2025). Personality Disorders: Current Conceptualizations and Challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 21, 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081423-030513
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