Other Specified and Unspecified Personality Disorder Diagnoses
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 13, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Other specified personality disorder and unspecified personality disorder are DSM-5-TR diagnostic categories for clinically significant personality-related patterns that are not adequately represented by one of the ten named personality disorders. They share an essential clinical threshold but communicate different amounts of diagnostic information. With other specified personality disorder, a clinician explicitly states why a named category is not applicable; with unspecified personality disorder, that reason is not given. The distinction is established in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision.
These terms can appear in clinical records, treatment summaries, or insurance documentation. Their unfamiliar wording sometimes leaves people wondering whether they have an unusually serious condition, several personality disorders, or no diagnosis at all. The categories have a specific purpose: to describe clinically important difficulties without forcing every person into a named categorical pattern. The American Psychiatric Association's overview describes personality disorders in terms of enduring patterns, inflexibility, distress, and impairment.
A useful formulation goes beyond the category name. It identifies what the person finds difficult, how long these patterns have persisted, what effects they have across life situations, what alternative explanations were considered, and which interventions may help. Modern dimensional research adds information about personality functioning and maladaptive traits. The research base on assessment supports combining self-report measures, clinical interviews, and temporal information rather than relying on a checklist alone. Widiger, Hines, and Crego (2024).
What Is Other Specified Personality Disorder?
Other specified personality disorder is used in the main DSM-5-TR categorical framework when symptoms characteristic of a personality disorder cause clinically significant distress or impairment but the complete criteria for a particular named personality disorder are not met. The clinician records the reason that the residual category is being used. One example is “other specified personality disorder, mixed personality features.” DSM-5-TR.
“Mixed personality features” describes an impairing configuration that draws on several named patterns without sufficiently fulfilling the criteria for one particular disorder. It does not establish an eleventh named personality disorder with an independent diagnostic checklist. The clinician still needs to establish the broader personality-disorder threshold and explain what makes the overall presentation clinically meaningful.
For example, consider a hypothetical person with longstanding difficulties maintaining a coherent sense of direction, excessive need for control, substantial mistrust, and repeated interpersonal conflicts. These characteristics might interact and contribute to serious functional problems, while no individual named DSM pattern sufficiently fits. An other-specified formulation could be considered after an appropriate assessment. The example cannot diagnose a person who shows similar behaviors.
The word “specified” refers to the clinician's reason for using the residual category. It does not convey a universal level of severity, a special prognosis, or an identified cause. The explanation accompanying the diagnosis should make the reason clear and connect it to the individual's needs.
What Is Unspecified Personality Disorder?
Unspecified personality disorder is another DSM-5-TR residual category for clinically significant personality-related presentations that are not adequately described by one named disorder. The difference is that the clinician does not state the particular reason for using a residual category. This may occur when sufficient information is unavailable, including in an encounter with limited time or history. The clinician may also choose not to specify the reason. DSM-5-TR.
An unspecified entry should not be interpreted as evidence that a person has borderline, narcissistic, avoidant, antisocial, or another particular named personality disorder. It does not prove that several personality disorders are present. It is also not inherently a statement that symptoms are mild. The record communicates less diagnostic detail, so the surrounding assessment and clinician's explanation are essential.
An individual may receive an unspecified entry during a brief evaluation in which longstanding interpersonal or self-regulation difficulties appear significant but the necessary life history is incomplete. The clinician may later reassess the presentation and provide greater specificity. In other cases, the entry may remain the most appropriate description. The clinical merits of either course depend on evidence rather than a rule that every unspecified diagnosis must eventually become a named one.
Other Specified vs Unspecified: The Central Difference
Both diagnoses address clinically significant patterns falling outside an adequately supported named personality disorder. Other specified requires the clinician to communicate the specific reason for that classification decision. Unspecified leaves the reason unstated. It is a distinction in diagnostic documentation and specificity, rather than a distinction between greater and lesser suffering.
A full specialist assessment might identify persistent impairment involving mixed personality features and explain why no named type fully describes the pattern. That formulation illustrates the other-specified route. A clinician in a brief service encounter might identify substantial personality-related impairment but lack the developmental and longitudinal evidence to characterize it more precisely. That situation illustrates one possible use of unspecified personality disorder.
These are hypothetical clinical scenarios, not instructions for assigning codes. Either label should be considered alongside an assessment of persistence, pervasiveness, context, functioning, and differential diagnoses. Evidence-Based Assessment of Personality Disorder emphasizes a multimethod assessment rather than a diagnosis from a single observation or score.
What Makes a Personality Pattern Clinically Significant?
Personality traits are recurring tendencies in emotion, cognition, motivation, and interpersonal behavior. A maladaptive trait can contribute to problems in particular circumstances. Symptoms are specific experiences or observed features. Personality functioning refers to capacities involving a reasonably coherent sense of self and effective reciprocal relationships. A screening result is a finding from a measurement tool. A personality disorder is a clinical diagnosis reached by applying formal requirements to the entire pattern.
The DSM framework examines whether an enduring and relatively inflexible pattern creates meaningful distress or functional impairment and appears across a relevant range of situations. Clinicians consider onset and developmental history, cultural expectations, other psychiatric conditions, substance exposure, medical causes, and other circumstances that can account for the difficulties. The APA provides a clinical overview, and the DSM-5-TR specifies categorical criteria.
A person can be perfectionistic, highly sensitive to criticism, mistrustful in a threatening environment, socially withdrawn, or dependent on reassurance without having a personality disorder. The social meaning of a trait is different from its diagnostic status. Identifying one difficult characteristic or recounting a relationship conflict is insufficient for diagnosis.
Some people experience real distress and need treatment while not meeting the threshold for any personality disorder. Effective care can address depression, anxiety, trauma-related symptoms, interpersonal difficulties, and daily impairment without insisting upon a personality-disorder label.
Why Does the DSM Need Residual Personality Disorder Categories?
The DSM-5-TR retains ten named categorical personality disorders. Human presentations vary substantially within these categories, and clinical patterns can overlap across them. An individual may experience substantial impairment arising from features spread across more than one category without meeting a complete named pattern. Someone else may have clinically important difficulties that the existing named configurations describe only partly.
Categorical boundaries simplify communication but do not capture every meaningful variation in personality functioning. A person may struggle with identity, attachment, impulsivity, mistrust, rigid expectations, or emotional regulation in a combination that fits poorly into a single diagnostic checklist. Clinical judgment must determine whether the broad disorder threshold is present and which descriptions are justified. APA's account of the alternative model addresses the limitations of relying exclusively on categorical diagnoses.
An individual can also fulfill criteria for more than one named personality disorder. Such co-occurrence does not automatically require replacing the diagnoses with other specified personality disorder. Conversely, having a few features associated with several disorders does not, by itself, produce a clinical syndrome. A defensible formulation makes these distinctions clear.
Mixed Personality Features and the Limits of a Label
A record noting “mixed personality features” should be accompanied by an individualized explanation: which patterns are longstanding, how they appear in different settings, how they interfere with goals and relationships, and how they interact with stress, mood, health, and life circumstances. The purpose is to improve understanding and treatment planning.
Two people described as having mixed features may be profoundly different. One may struggle with rigid perfectionism and detachment; another with emotional reactivity and suspiciousness. Their strengths, supports, degree of impairment, co-occurring conditions, and therapeutic needs may also differ. The shared phrase should never be treated as proof of a single cause or a one-size-fits-all treatment.
The term has a formal role in the DSM residual category. Informal labels such as “quiet BPD,” “favorite person,” “covert narcissist,” or “splitting” have different meanings and clinical status and must not be combined into an improvised diagnosis. Popularity online does not establish a separate disorder.
Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified: Why Older Records Say PDNOS
Before the current residual distinction, research and clinical records frequently used “personality disorder not otherwise specified,” abbreviated PDNOS. It is prominent in DSM-IV-era literature and was commonly used for cases involving clinically important personality pathology not represented adequately by one named type. It is historical terminology; the current DSM-5-TR uses other specified and unspecified personality disorder in its main categorical system.
A meta-analysis by Verheul and Widiger (2004) synthesized 51 studies examining PDNOS and named personality disorders. Its best estimate of the absolute prevalence of PDNOS in clinical patient samples was 8–13%, while the relative frequency among diagnosed Axis II presentations was higher. Results varied substantially according to the assessment method and how PDNOS was defined. Only slightly more than half the studies reported an operational definition, and “mixed” personality disorder was a frequent interpretation.
The numbers establish that residual personality presentations were important in historical clinical practice. They do not estimate the present-day prevalence of either DSM-5-TR residual category in the U.S. population. The study populations, historical classification, measurement practices, and threshold definitions differ too much to justify that extrapolation.
A later construct-validity study involving 1,760 psychotherapy referrals also found that estimated PDNOS frequency varied dramatically depending on the operational definition. This is a methodological lesson: prevalence figures without precise diagnostic definitions can mislead readers and clinicians alike.
How Is a Residual Personality Disorder Diagnosed?
A good clinical assessment begins with what the person is experiencing and wants to change. The clinician explores how the concerns affect identity, emotion regulation, relationships, work, education, health, and other everyday responsibilities. The history should identify when the pattern emerged, whether it occurs across contexts, and how it differs from behavior during a particular crisis or psychiatric episode.
A structured or semistructured interview can improve consistency in assessing categorical personality disorders. Instruments such as the SCID-5-PD can help assess DSM categorical criteria, while other inventories provide information about maladaptive traits or level of personality functioning. Their appropriate use depends on training, intended population, and clinical context.
Widiger, Hines, and Crego (2024) recommend a multimethod strategy: a self-report instrument can draw attention to potentially maladaptive functioning, and a semi-structured interview can evaluate whether the disorder is actually present. Differential diagnosis, stability across time, and evidence for thresholds improve the validity of this work.
Relevant medical and mental-health records can provide context. With consent, and when clinically useful, information from people who know the patient may supplement the history. The patient’s account remains central; differences among accounts should be explored rather than mechanically resolved in favor of a third party.
The related English Hub articles How Are Personality Disorders Diagnosed? The Clinical Assessment Process and Personality Disorder Screening Tests: What Scores Can and Cannot Tell You explain those broader diagnostic questions.
Identity and Self-Direction
Identity concerns coherence in the experience of oneself, continuity across circumstances, and the ability to recognize personal boundaries and self-worth. Self-direction concerns meaningful aims, internal standards, and pursuit of those aims. Problems in these areas may contribute to clinically significant personality dysfunction, but neither area by itself determines a named or residual diagnosis.
Some individuals maintain stable employment while experiencing profound uncertainty about personal goals. Others can describe their values but struggle to pursue them in the face of interpersonal pressures. A dimensional assessment describes these differences more precisely than assuming the same pattern in every person. Alternative DSM Model.
Empathy and Intimacy
Empathy, in the personality-functioning framework, concerns understanding other people’s perspectives and experiences. Intimacy concerns the capacity for sustained, mutually meaningful relationships. Difficulties in these domains can arise through many mechanisms, including anxiety, mistrust, excessive dependency, interpersonal rigidity, or social and developmental differences.
Clinicians need to distinguish an enduring impairment from a single difficult relationship, cultural differences in emotional expression, and adaptive caution in unsafe environments. These domains illuminate functioning, not moral value or a person's worthiness of support.
Development, Age, and Culture
Personality and interpersonal functioning develop across life. Adolescence and early adulthood involve changing roles, identity development, and relationships. Later life may bring bereavement, disability, health changes, and altered social networks. Clinicians interpret patterns in relation to developmental expectations and evaluate whether new symptoms require medical or neurological assessment.
Culture influences norms around autonomy, family obligations, emotional expression, self-disclosure, and intimacy. An assessment should account for discrimination, social adversity, language, migration experiences, trauma, and disability. Behavior that appears unusual to one observer may be contextually understandable. APA overview.
Differential Diagnosis: Conditions That May Resemble Personality Problems
Depression can affect motivation, self-esteem, decisions, emotional responsiveness, and close relationships. Anxiety can cause avoidance, reassurance seeking, and vigilance. Bipolar episodes may change energy, sleep, impulsivity, and judgment. Trauma-related disorders can involve persistent mistrust, altered self-perception, emotional dysregulation, and relational difficulties. These possibilities need specific assessment rather than automatic conversion into personality disorder.
OCD can produce distressing obsessions and compulsive rituals. Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder instead concerns a distinct, pervasive pattern involving order, control, and perfectionism. The comparison between those conditions has a separate canonical owner in the English Hub and should not be recreated by this article.
Psychotic symptoms, dissociation, substance use, medication effects, and neurological or medical conditions can also affect behavior, self-experience, and interpersonal life. A clinician examines whether difficulties persist outside identifiable episodes and whether conditions coexist. Identifying one disorder does not necessarily exclude another.
Autism and ADHD require particular attention because social communication differences, sensory experiences, executive-function problems, and regulation difficulties can sometimes be misread as personality pathology. The English Hub covers these distinctions in Personality Disorders and Autism and Personality Disorders and ADHD.
Co-occurring conditions are possible. The diagnostic task is to explain the evidence for each condition, the functional impact, and the relationship among problems. Evidence-Based Assessment of Personality Disorder provides a research-grounded approach.
DSM-5-TR Section II, Section III, and ICD-11 Compared
Three systems are commonly confused: the DSM-5-TR's main categorical personality-disorder diagnoses, the DSM-5 alternative model retained in Section III, and the WHO's ICD-11 classification. They cover related clinical phenomena but organize diagnosis differently. Their terms should not be assumed to be interchangeable. DSM-5-TR; WHO's 2024 clinical diagnostic manual.
DSM-5-TR Section II: Ten Named Types Plus Residual Options
The main categorical system recognizes ten named personality disorders, historically grouped into Clusters A, B, and C. It also provides other specified and unspecified personality disorder when a clinically meaningful presentation cannot be adequately assigned to a single named type. Clusters A–C are historical organizing groups, not severity scores and not the organizing system used by ICD-11.
DSM-5-TR Section III: Personality Disorder—Trait Specified
The Alternative Model for Personality Disorders, or AMPD, describes impairment in personality functioning alongside pathological personality traits. It retains several specific hybrid patterns and allows a diagnosis called personality disorder—trait specified (PD-TS) when the alternative-model disorder criteria are met without one retained type fitting the presentation.
This is a distinct classification and formulation pathway from Section II other specified personality disorder. PD-TS emphasizes identifiable impairments and maladaptive trait dimensions. The APA's alternative-model description and Widiger and Hines's analysis describe the model and research questions surrounding its validity and clinical utility.
ICD-11: Personality Disorder Severity and Trait Qualifiers
ICD-11 diagnoses personality disorder according to the presence and degree of dysfunction, classifying severity as mild (6D10.0), moderate (6D10.1), or severe (6D10.2). Clinicians may add trait qualifiers describing negative affectivity, detachment, dissociality, disinhibition, and anankastia; a borderline pattern qualifier is also available. These are detailed in the World Health Organization's clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements.
ICD-11 code 6D10.Z means personality disorder, severity unspecified. It is not a direct translation of DSM-5-TR unspecified personality disorder, because it leaves the severity dimension unspecified within a different classification system. It also does not constitute a fourth severity category.
ICD-11 personality difficulty, coded QE50.7, refers to clinically relevant personality characteristics below the personality-disorder threshold. It is distinct both from an ICD-11 personality-disorder diagnosis and from the DSM residual categories. These differences matter when interpreting international records and comparing studies.
For full classification detail, read DSM-5-TR vs ICD-11 Personality Disorders: Diagnosis and Classification and ICD-11 Personality Disorder Severity: Mild, Moderate, and Severe.
How Common Are the Modern Residual Diagnoses?
A sound prevalence estimate must specify the edition of the classification, the exact residual definition, the population, the diagnostic instrument, and the clinical or community setting. Historical PDNOS studies often did not use comparable definitions. This makes direct comparison across time particularly difficult.
The Verheul and Widiger review found 8–13% PDNOS prevalence in historical clinical patient samples. Those numbers should not be stated as a current percentage of Americans with other specified or unspecified personality disorder. Research under current criteria and representative sampling would be necessary to establish such figures.
A historical research limitation does not reduce the clinical importance of individuals who fall outside the named categories. It emphasizes the importance of precise descriptions and transparency about what empirical evidence actually represents.
What Causes Other Specified or Unspecified Personality Disorder?
These residual categories group heterogeneous presentations, and no single established causal mechanism uniquely defines them. Personality functioning emerges through the interaction of temperament, inherited predispositions, development, learning, relationships, environment, stress exposure, and opportunities for adaptation. These influences differ from person to person. APA overview.
Research on personality pathology has explored trauma exposure, attachment, emotional regulation, mentalizing, and biological correlates. Such findings may be relevant to an individual's formulation, but a label alone cannot prove that someone experienced neglect, abuse, a particular parenting style, or a specific neurological process. Association and individual causation must be distinguished.
A clinical formulation can be more specific than a diagnosis by identifying recurring triggers, interpretations, coping responses, relationship cycles, available strengths, and supports. This explanatory work guides treatment without inventing a uniform cause for a diverse diagnostic group.
Treatment: What Does the Evidence Support?
Treatment should address the person's actual difficulties and preferences. Psychological therapies may work on emotional regulation, interpersonal patterns, self-understanding, rigid assumptions, avoidance, impulsive behavior, and difficulty sustaining life goals. Co-occurring disorders may require their own evidence-based treatments. A residual category does not identify one therapy as universally best. APA overview.
A directly relevant quasi-experimental study by Horn and colleagues (2015) compared different psychotherapy modalities among 205 patients with the older PDNOS diagnosis. The study found improvements in symptom severity and social role functioning across treatment groups, with gains observed at follow-up. Some differences between treatment formats diminished by 60 months.
This evidence suggests that clinical improvement is possible in historically defined residual personality presentations. It does not establish that one treatment is superior for every patient with the modern DSM-5-TR residual diagnoses. Treatment allocation was not randomized, and diagnostic categories have changed. Readers should not infer an individualized prognosis or universal treatment algorithm from this single study.
Structured psychological treatment also has a more extensive evidence base for certain named disorders, particularly borderline personality disorder. The 2024 American Psychiatric Association BPD practice guideline recommends a structured, evidence-supported psychotherapy targeting core BPD features alongside an individualized treatment plan. These findings are specific to the populations examined and should not automatically be generalized to other specified or unspecified personality disorder.
Medication and Co-Occurring Conditions
No medication is established specifically for the residual diagnosis name itself. Medication decisions are based on individually identified target symptoms, clearly diagnosed co-occurring conditions, potential harms, previous response, and patient preferences. Treatment may be needed for depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, or other disorders according to their own guidance.
The 2024 APA BPD guideline advises targeted, time-limited, adjunctive use when medication is prescribed specifically for BPD. That recommendation is not a general medication protocol for all personality disorders and should not be presented as proof that mixed-feature presentations have the same drug response.
Recovery and Long-Term Functioning
Changes in social functioning, relationships, work or study participation, daily stability, quality of life, emotional regulation, and self-direction are important treatment outcomes. They may improve even when some familiar personality tendencies remain. Clinical goals should reflect what matters to the individual rather than treating a diagnostic label as a fixed forecast.
A systematic review and meta-analysis by d'Huart and colleagues (2023) synthesized 40 longitudinal studies covering more than 38,000 participants and found only moderate diagnostic and dimensional stability overall, with considerable heterogeneity. Results do not provide a specific remission probability for the modern residual categories, but they undermine the assumption that all personality-disorder presentations remain unchanged throughout life.
Follow-up assessment can distinguish lasting improvements, new stressors, co-occurring episodes, and changes in supports. A classification should help clinicians understand changing needs, not prevent recognition of progress.
What to Do if the Diagnosis Appears in Your Medical Record
First, ask whether the entry is a current diagnosis, an initial working formulation, a historical term imported from an older chart, or a label associated with a limited encounter. Ask which diagnostic system was used and what information supported the threshold for a personality disorder.
For other specified personality disorder, request the particular reason recorded. For an unspecified entry, ask what aspects remain unclear and whether a fuller assessment would be helpful. A clear discussion should address functioning, duration, differentials, co-occurring conditions, treatment goals, and a plan for review.
A U.S. chart may use ICD-10-CM administrative codes such as F60.89 or F60.9. These codes must be interpreted in context and should not be mistaken for WHO's ICD-11 severity codes. A billing label alone does not communicate a comprehensive clinical formulation.
If clinicians disagree, a specialist opinion may be useful. The aim is to compare evidence and improve care, including an explanation of how diagnosis may evolve with additional history or treatment.
Stigma, Misuse of Labels, and Family Relationships
A diagnosis describes clinically relevant difficulties and should support access to appropriate care. It is not a statement about character, moral worth, intelligence, or the right to respectful relationships. The terms “mixed” and “unspecified” can feel impersonal unless clinicians explain what they mean and how they relate to practical treatment.
When discussing someone else's difficult behavior, focus on concrete actions, boundaries, and safety rather than assigning a personality disorder from afar. A severe conflict, betrayal, controlling behavior, or social withdrawal does not by itself establish any diagnosis. Words such as “psychopath,” “sociopath,” and “narcissist” are often used colloquially and do not function as interchangeable formal diagnostic labels.
The residual diagnosis does not itself predict self-harm, suicidality, psychosis, or aggression. Any immediate risk must be assessed individually. Someone at imminent risk of serious harm needs emergency support. In the United States, 988 offers crisis counseling and referral. People can receive help with current difficulties while longer-term diagnostic questions remain under evaluation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is other specified personality disorder a real DSM-5-TR diagnosis?
Yes. It is a recognized residual category for clinically significant personality-related presentations that do not fulfill the complete criteria for one named personality disorder, with an explicit reason documented. DSM-5-TR.
Does unspecified personality disorder mean my symptoms are mild?
No. “Unspecified” refers to a lack of documented diagnostic specificity. It is not a severity grade. Severity is evaluated through functioning, impairment, current risk, and the clinical picture.
Does unspecified mean the clinician has no idea what is wrong?
Not necessarily. A clinician may have meaningful information about distress and impairments without documenting why one particular personality-disorder category is not assigned. Ask what evidence supports the diagnosis and what follow-up is appropriate.
Is other specified personality disorder the same as mixed personality disorder?
Mixed personality features can be given as a reason for other specified personality disorder. This is a descriptive formulation within a recognized residual category, not an independently named DSM-5-TR syndrome.
Is PDNOS still the current term?
PDNOS is historical DSM-IV-era terminology. The DSM-5-TR distinguishes other specified and unspecified personality disorder in the categorical system. Historical research on PDNOS does not map perfectly onto these contemporary categories.
Can I have traits from several personality disorders without a disorder?
Yes. Individual traits do not automatically reach the clinical threshold. Assessment examines persistence, pervasiveness, impairment, context, culture, and other possible explanations. APA.
Can a person have two named personality-disorder diagnoses?
Yes. Diagnostic overlap can occur. Clinicians should evaluate whether named diagnoses are justified and should not assume that all overlap must be replaced by a residual diagnosis.
Is personality disorder—trait specified the same diagnosis?
No. Personality disorder—trait specified is a distinct option within the DSM Section III Alternative Model, built around personality functioning and maladaptive trait descriptions. AMPD research overview.
Does ICD-11 contain unspecified personality disorder?
ICD-11 has personality disorder with severity unspecified (6D10.Z), but that means the level of severity is not specified in the ICD-11 framework. It is not a direct equivalent of the DSM-5-TR residual category. WHO.
Can an online test establish either diagnosis?
No. Tests can identify matters to assess, but clinical interviews and consideration of longitudinal patterns, differential diagnoses, and functioning are needed before a diagnosis can be established. Widiger et al. (2024).
Will the diagnosis remain forever?
Records may retain historical entries, but clinical diagnoses and formulations can be reassessed when evidence and functioning change. Longitudinal research documents substantial variability in course. d'Huart et al. (2023).
What is the best therapy for mixed personality features?
There is insufficient comparative evidence to identify one universally best treatment. The choice depends on actual problems, treatment goals, comorbidities, patient preferences, and clinical resources. Horn et al. (2015).
Key Conclusion
Other specified and unspecified personality disorder are DSM-5-TR residual diagnoses used when clinically significant personality-related disturbance does not fit a named categorical disorder. The first states the clinician's reason; the second leaves it unstated. Sound use requires an enduring, impairing pattern, a competent differential evaluation, and an individualized formulation. The AMPD's personality disorder—trait specified and ICD-11's severity-plus-traits system describe related clinical territory through different diagnostic rules. The purpose of a careful diagnosis is to make care more effective, understandable, and responsive to changes in functioning.
Related Articles
For ICD-11's below-threshold QE50.7 classification, see Personality Difficulty in ICD-11: Meaning and Diagnostic Limits.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders. Focus, 11(2). DOI: 10.1176/appi.focus.11.2.189.
American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). American Psychiatric Association Publishing. DOI: 10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787.
American Psychiatric Association. (2024). Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with borderline personality disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.24181010.
American Psychiatric Association. (2024). What Are Personality Disorders? Official clinical education page. American Psychiatric Association.
d'Huart, D., Seker, S., Bürgin, D., et al. (2023). The stability of personality disorders and personality disorder criteria: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 102, 102284. DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102284.
Horn, E. K., Bartak, A., Meerman, A. M. M. A., et al. (2015). Effectiveness of psychotherapy in personality disorders not otherwise specified: A comparison of different treatment modalities. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 22(5), 426–442. DOI: 10.1002/cpp.1904.
Tyrer, P., Mulder, R., Kim, Y.-R., & Crawford, M. J. (2019). The development of the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders: An amalgam of science, pragmatism, and politics. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 15, 481–502. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095736.
Verheul, R., Bartak, A., & Widiger, T. A. (2007). Prevalence and construct validity of personality disorder not otherwise specified (PDNOS). Journal of Personality Disorders, 21(4), 359–370. PubMed.
Verheul, R., & Widiger, T. A. (2004). A meta-analysis of the prevalence and usage of the personality disorder not otherwise specified (PDNOS) diagnosis. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18(4), 309–319. DOI: 10.1521/pedi.2004.18.4.309.
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. DOI: 10.1037/per0000524.
Widiger, T. A., Hines, A., & Crego, C. (2024). Evidence-Based Assessment of Personality Disorder. Assessment, 31(1), 191–198. DOI: 10.1177/10731911231176461.
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. Official WHO publication.