People Pleaser Test: What Self-Reflection Can and Cannot Tell You
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 22, 2026 · Editorial Policy
If you searched for a people pleaser test, you are probably trying to answer a deceptively simple question: “Is this just part of being considerate, or do I repeatedly put other people’s preferences, approval, or comfort ahead of my own needs and choices?” A useful self-reflection exercise can help you notice that pattern. It cannot turn an everyday label into a psychiatric diagnosis.
People pleasing is best understood as a descriptive interpersonal pattern rather than a mental disorder. It is not a named diagnosis in DSM-5-TR or ICD-11. The American Psychiatric Association explains that DSM diagnostic criteria are intended for trained professionals using clinical judgment, while the World Health Organization’s ICD-11 clinical manual provides diagnostic requirements for recognized mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental disorders. “People pleaser” is not one of those diagnoses.
At the same time, the research landscape has changed. In 2025, researchers reported psychometric evidence for a 13-item Chinese People-Pleasing Questionnaire in Chinese university students, and in 2026 a separate 10-item People Pleasing Scale was developed and validated in two preregistered German samples. These studies mean that people pleasing can now be studied as an emerging research construct with dedicated measures. They do not establish a universal clinical cutoff, a disorder, or a score that tells an individual what caused their behavior. See Kuang et al. (2025) and Blötner (2026).
People Pleaser Test: A No-Score Self-Reflection Checklist
The checklist below is an educational self-reflection tool created for this article. It is not the People Pleasing Scale, the Chinese People-Pleasing Questionnaire, or any other published psychometric instrument. It has not been validated, normed, or tested for diagnostic accuracy. There is therefore no total score, no “mild/moderate/severe” band, and no threshold at which you become a “people pleaser.”
For each statement, consider whether it is rarely true, sometimes true, often true, or highly dependent on the person or situation. The most informative part is not the number of statements you endorse. It is the pattern: how automatic the behavior feels, what happens when you choose differently, how much it costs you, and whether you still have meaningful freedom to act according to your own values and obligations.
1. I sometimes agree to requests before I have checked whether I actually have the time, energy, or desire to do them.
2. I may say “yes” mainly because saying “no” feels likely to produce rejection, anger, disappointment, or a negative judgment.
3. I sometimes hide a preference because I expect that another person will prefer something else.
4. I find myself monitoring whether other people are pleased with me and adjusting my behavior to restore their approval.
5. I may apologize even when I am unsure that I did something wrong, especially when tension feels difficult to tolerate.
6. I sometimes take responsibility for another adult’s mood or disappointment beyond what I can realistically control.
7. I may offer help that I do not freely want to give because refusing feels morally wrong, selfish, or unsafe.
8. I sometimes stay silent about disagreement in order to prevent conflict, even when the issue matters to me.
9. I may overcommit and then feel trapped, depleted, or resentful after the immediate pressure to agree has passed.
10. I sometimes need a long explanation before I feel entitled to decline an optional request.
11. I may change my position quickly when I sense that someone important disapproves of it.
12. I sometimes have difficulty identifying what I want until I know what everyone else wants.
13. I may tolerate recurring inconvenience or emotional strain because asking for change feels harder than enduring it.
14. I sometimes treat another person’s disappointment as evidence that I have done something wrong.
15. I may give more time, attention, labor, money, or emotional availability than I can sustain because I fear being seen as uncaring.
16. I sometimes avoid asking for what I need because I expect the request itself to burden or annoy the other person.
17. I may feel responsible for keeping interactions smooth even when the other person is also contributing to the conflict.
18. I sometimes feel relief immediately after agreeing to something, followed later by frustration with myself or the situation.
19. My willingness to accommodate can change sharply depending on power, dependence, safety, or how much I fear the other person’s reaction.
20. I can usually tell the difference between helping because I genuinely choose to and helping because I feel I must preserve approval or prevent conflict.
How to Read Your Answers Without Turning Them Into a Diagnosis
A self-reflection checklist becomes more useful when you stop asking “How many did I get?” and start asking what kind of interpersonal process the answers describe. Four questions matter more than an invented cutoff.
1. Is the behavior flexible or automatic?
Kindness and cooperation are usually flexible. You can help, decline, negotiate, postpone, or offer a different form of support depending on the situation. A people-pleasing pattern becomes more psychologically significant when accommodation feels compulsory: you know that another choice is possible in theory, but fear, guilt, approval-seeking, or conflict avoidance repeatedly makes that choice feel unavailable.
2. What is the cost?
Consider practical and emotional cost. Does the pattern produce chronic overcommitment, neglected needs, sleep loss, financial strain, reduced time for important responsibilities, difficulty making independent decisions, recurring resentment, or meaningful impairment in relationships or work? A single inconvenient favor tells you very little. Repeated self-suppression with accumulating consequences tells you more.
3. How context-specific is it?
Someone may be direct with friends and highly accommodating with a supervisor, a financially controlling partner, an ill family member, or a person whose rejection carries unusual consequences. That variation matters. A response can reflect role expectations, power imbalance, safety concerns, cultural norms, caregiving obligations, or learned history rather than a single stable trait.
4. What happens when you choose differently?
Notice what you predict and what actually happens when you pause, express a preference, make a reasonable request, or decline something optional. If the difficulty is mainly about stating your position clearly, the skills in Assertive Communication: Skills, Examples, and How to Practice may be relevant. If the problem is defining what you are willing to participate in, What Are Personal Boundaries? explains boundaries as interpersonal limits and decisions about your own participation rather than tools for controlling someone else.
What a People Pleaser Test Can Tell You
Used carefully, self-reflection can identify patterns that deserve closer attention. It can help you notice that you agree faster than you would like, suppress preferences in particular relationships, rely heavily on approval, avoid conflict at a personal cost, struggle to decline optional demands, or feel responsible for emotions that belong partly or primarily to other people.
It can also make the distinction between isolated behaviors and recurring patterns clearer. If you want a deeper description of how chronic approval-seeking may appear across daily life, see People Pleasing Signs: How Chronic Approval-Seeking Can Show Up. The signs article owns that intent; the present article focuses on what self-assessment can and cannot establish.
A checklist can also create better questions. Instead of “What is wrong with me?”, you can ask: In which relationships do I silence myself? Which requests are hardest to refuse? What do I predict will happen if someone is disappointed? Which forms of helping still feel freely chosen? Which obligations are real, and which responsibilities have I assumed without examining them? Those questions can be useful in journaling, counseling, psychotherapy, or a difficult conversation.
What a People Pleaser Test Cannot Tell You
An online checklist cannot establish why you behave this way. Similar outward behavior can arise from very different pathways: ordinary social learning, temperament, role demands, fear of negative evaluation, rejection sensitivity, attachment-related processes, cultural expectations, family norms, workplace incentives, caregiving responsibilities, previous experiences of conflict, or current dependence on another person. Several pathways can coexist.
It also cannot prove that you experienced childhood trauma. People pleasing may be discussed in trauma-informed settings, but a pattern of accommodation is not evidence that trauma occurred. If you are trying to evaluate past adverse experiences rather than people-pleasing behavior, Childhood Trauma Test: What Questionnaires Can and Cannot Tell You addresses that separate assessment question.
A people pleaser test cannot diagnose an attachment style either. Adult attachment is studied through dimensional research constructs, especially attachment anxiety and avoidance, while popular “attachment style” categories simplify that literature. If attachment is the actual question, see Anxious Attachment Style: Signs, Triggers, Relationships, and What Research Shows. People pleasing and attachment anxiety can overlap in some individuals without being interchangeable.
The checklist cannot diagnose social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, a personality disorder, or any other clinical condition. It cannot establish codependency, which is itself not a formal DSM or ICD diagnosis. It cannot prove that another person is manipulative or abusive. It cannot determine whether a relationship is healthy from one person’s score.
It also cannot tell you whether every uncomfortable feeling after saying no is evidence of an unhealthy pattern. Guilt can sometimes reflect learned over-responsibility, but it can also reflect an actual obligation that was neglected. Anxiety can reflect fear of rejection, but it can also be a realistic response to a power imbalance or anticipated retaliation. Interpretation requires context.
Is There a Scientifically Validated People Pleaser Test?
There are now peer-reviewed research measures specifically designed to assess people pleasing, but the answer depends on what “validated” means. Blötner’s 2026 study developed a 10-item People Pleasing Scale in two preregistered German samples (n = 571 and n = 1,323). The analyses supported three dimensions—Responsibility, Neglect of Own Needs, and Others’ Expectations—and found that the construct overlapped with but was distinguishable from traits such as agreeableness, honesty-humility, emotionality, and empathy. The author describes the findings as initial psychometric evidence and explicitly notes the need for broader, more culturally diverse testing. See the Current Psychology article.
The same study also matters because it describes people pleasing as a construct originating in lay psychology and self-help rather than an established scientific theory. That is an unusually important clarification for online readers: a research team can operationalize and validate a measurable construct without converting the everyday label into a psychiatric disorder.
Kuang and colleagues’ 2025 study evaluated a Chinese People-Pleasing Questionnaire in university students. After psychometric refinement, the reported measure contained 13 items covering thought, behavior, and feeling dimensions and showed evidence of reliability, construct validity, and measurement invariance within the studied context. The authors also reported associations between higher people-pleasing tendencies and lower mental well-being. The population and cultural context matter when interpreting generalizability. See Kuang et al. (2025).
Neither of these studies establishes a universal clinical diagnostic threshold. Psychometric validation asks whether a measure behaves coherently and measures the intended construct in studied samples. Diagnostic validation is a different task: it would require an accepted disorder definition, clinically meaningful thresholds, and evidence about sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, and appropriate use. People pleasing does not currently have that diagnostic status.
Kuang and colleagues also reviewed older popular people-pleasing quizzes and noted that some widely circulated scoring thresholds lacked empirical support for their cutoffs or reliability. That is exactly why this article does not tell readers that a particular total means “severe people pleasing.” The existence of a number on a quiz does not make the number clinically meaningful. Kuang et al. (2025) provides the relevant psychometric discussion.
Why Online People Pleaser Quiz Scores Can Be Misleading
Self-report is valuable because no observer has direct access to your private motives, fear, guilt, or sense of obligation. Yet self-report also depends on how you interpret the questions, which situations you have in mind, your current mood, your memory, the comparison group you imagine, and whether you answer according to behavior, intention, or self-image.
A 2025 review on overreliance on self-report in psychological assessment emphasizes that subjective symptom and history reports are indispensable while also warning that treating them as sufficient diagnostic evidence can produce error. The paper addresses clinical assessment broadly rather than people pleasing specifically, but the principle is directly relevant to online self-tests: self-report is information, not an entire diagnostic process. See Merten (2025).
Scores can also hide context. Imagine two people who both endorse “I find it hard to say no.” One avoids declining casual invitations because they fear being disliked. The other avoids refusing an employer who has previously retaliated against staff. A numerical answer can look identical while the interpersonal meaning, realistic risk, and appropriate response are very different.
The reverse is also true. A low total score can obscure one high-impact relationship in which self-suppression is intense. A person may be assertive almost everywhere and still become highly compliant with one parent, partner, client, or authority figure. Trait-like questionnaires are not designed to replace a close examination of situational patterns.
People Pleasing Is Not the Same as Kindness, Cooperation, or Caregiving
A good people pleaser test should avoid treating every prosocial act as evidence of a problem. Helping someone at inconvenience to yourself can be generous. Compromise is part of ordinary relationships. Caregiving can involve genuine sacrifice. Cooperation often requires adjusting to other people. Social life would be impossible if every accommodation were interpreted as unhealthy self-abandonment.
Research on “unmitigated communion” illustrates the distinction. Fritz and Helgeson studied a pattern characterized by focus on others to the exclusion of the self and distinguished it from communion, a positive caring orientation toward others. In their studies, unmitigated communion was associated with self-neglect, reliance on others for self-evaluation, overinvolvement, and distress, whereas care for others itself was conceptually distinct. See Fritz and Helgeson (1998).
The newer 2026 People Pleasing Scale similarly found that people pleasing was related to prosocial personality characteristics but empirically distinguishable from them. That finding supports a more precise question than “Am I too nice?”: does concern for others remain compatible with your own goals and needs, or does it repeatedly involve neglect of them? See Blötner (2026).
A person can be warm, agreeable, generous, cooperative, and sensitive to others without showing a costly pattern of approval-driven self-suppression. Conversely, someone can be blunt or disagreeable and still become highly compliant in one relationship where rejection or retaliation feels especially threatening.
People Pleasing and Related Research Constructs
The term people pleasing overlaps with several older constructs in personality, interpersonal, and clinical psychology. Overlap does not mean equivalence. Understanding the differences helps prevent a self-test from becoming a grab bag of every behavior involving other people.
Approval seeking and interpersonal sensitivity
The Interpersonal Sensitivity Measure developed by Boyce and Parker includes subscales for interpersonal awareness, need for approval, separation anxiety, timidity, and a fragile inner self. It was designed as a broader self-report measure of interpersonal sensitivity, not as a people-pleasing diagnostic test. Its original work included both nonclinical and depressed samples and showed that scores could vary with mood state. See Boyce and Parker (1989).
Sociotropy
Sociotropy is a research construct involving investment in interpersonal relationships and, in some formulations, dependency, affiliation, and concerns about approval. A large college-sample psychometric study found sociotropy related to dependency, self-criticalness, and affiliation motivation. It is a theoretically and historically distinct construct, not simply an older name for people pleasing. See Clark et al. (1995).
Blötner’s 2026 paper explicitly identifies the relation between people pleasing and sociotropy as an area requiring further direct empirical clarification rather than assuming that the constructs are identical. That is a useful model for interpretation: when two psychological labels overlap, evidence should determine the relationship instead of internet terminology collapsing them into one concept. See Blötner (2026).
Self-silencing
Self-silencing concerns inhibiting or subordinating aspects of the self in intimate relationships. The original Silencing the Self Scale was developed from work on depression in women and tested in specific samples of women, including college students, residents of battered women’s shelters, and mothers in a substance-use-related cohort. It showed reliability and correlations with depressive symptoms in those samples. It is not a generic people-pleaser test, and its original population and theoretical framing should not be erased. See Jack and Dill (1992).
For readers whose concern centers specifically on suppressing needs, opinions, or conflict in close relationships, People Pleasing in Relationships explores that relational intent more deeply without treating self-silencing as a diagnosis.
People Pleasing, Anxiety, Attachment, and Trauma: What a Test Cannot Separate
A person who fears negative evaluation may accommodate others to reduce the chance of criticism. Someone with strong rejection sensitivity may scan relationships for signs of disapproval. Someone high in attachment anxiety may become especially concerned with closeness or abandonment. Someone with a history of threatening interpersonal environments may have learned that appeasement sometimes reduces immediate danger. Someone else may have no clinical anxiety, trauma history, or attachment difficulty at all and simply have a long-practiced habit of being “easy,” useful, or agreeable.
These possibilities can produce superficially similar checklist answers. A general people-pleasing questionnaire cannot reliably determine which pathway applies. Associations between constructs do not establish a single cause, and a questionnaire item about saying yes cannot retrospectively prove childhood events.
This is also why the popular term “fawn response” should be handled carefully. It is widely used in trauma-informed and popular psychology discourse to describe appeasing behavior under perceived threat, but it is not a separate DSM or ICD diagnosis and should not be treated as a universally established biological stress-response category equivalent to fight or flight. People pleasing can occur without trauma, and trauma can occur without people pleasing.
Likewise, “codependency” has a long history in clinical and self-help discourse but is not an official DSM or ICD psychiatric diagnosis. Caring about a partner, staying in a difficult relationship, or having trouble saying no does not by itself establish codependency.
A Better Way to Use the Checklist: Look for Patterns, Not a Label
If several statements resonate, choose two or three concrete situations from the last month rather than assigning yourself an identity. Write down what was asked, what you wanted, what you predicted would happen if you responded differently, what you actually said or did, and what the short- and long-term consequences were.
Then ask whether your response reflected a real obligation. Parents, caregivers, employees, partners, friends, and community members all have legitimate responsibilities. Sometimes another person’s need deserves priority. The relevant question is not whether you ever sacrifice. It is whether your pattern remains voluntary, proportionate, sustainable, and responsive to context.
Next, separate preference from fear. You may genuinely prefer harmony, enjoy helping, or place a high value on generosity. Those motives are not pathology. If the same behavior is driven mainly by anticipated rejection, humiliation, anger, punishment, or abandonment, that information points to a different problem to examine.
Finally, test small choices where it is safe and appropriate. Pause before an automatic yes. State a low-stakes preference. Ask for time to check your schedule. Offer one form of help instead of unlimited availability. A boundary is a decision about your own participation, not a command that forces someone else to behave differently; What Are Personal Boundaries? develops that distinction.
The goal of self-reflection is not to become less caring. It is to make caring more intentional, so that generosity, compromise, and responsibility can coexist with your own legitimate needs, commitments, and agency.
When a Self-Test Is Not Enough
Consider speaking with a qualified mental health professional when the pattern is persistent and causes substantial distress or impairment, when anxiety about rejection or conflict severely restricts daily life, when depressed mood or exhaustion is significant, or when you cannot identify your own preferences across many areas of life. The clinical question would then be broader than “Am I a people pleaser?” and would consider symptoms, functioning, history, context, and possible differential explanations.
If you fear retaliation, coercion, violence, stalking, financial control, or other serious consequences for disagreeing or setting limits, the central issue may be safety rather than assertiveness. Strategic silence, delayed responses, compliance, or avoidance can sometimes be adaptive in unsafe or strongly power-imbalanced situations. A communication script is not a safety plan, and stronger boundaries or more assertive wording do not make another person stop abusive behavior.
If the problem is mostly that you know what you want but struggle to communicate it in ordinary, reasonably safe relationships, skill-building may be useful. Assertiveness involves expressing your needs, preferences, limits, and disagreements while respecting the rights and dignity of others; it is not dominance, bluntness, selfishness, or forcing agreement.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is people pleasing a mental illness?
No. People pleasing is not a named DSM-5-TR or ICD-11 mental disorder. It can coexist with ordinary personality variation, learned interpersonal habits, anxiety, depressive symptoms, trauma-related difficulties, attachment-related processes, or clinical disorders, but the label itself is not a diagnosis. See the APA DSM-5-TR overview and WHO ICD-11 CDDR.
Is there a validated people pleaser test?
There are now peer-reviewed research measures with psychometric validation, including Blötner’s 10-item People Pleasing Scale in two German samples and the 13-item Chinese People-Pleasing Questionnaire evaluated by Kuang and colleagues in Chinese university students. These are research instruments, not diagnostic tests with universal clinical cutoffs. Their evidence should not be transferred automatically to every language, culture, age group, or clinical population. See Blötner (2026) and Kuang et al. (2025).
What score means I am a people pleaser?
There is no universally accepted clinical score that turns a person into a “people pleaser.” Some online quizzes publish bands such as low, moderate, or severe, but a threshold needs empirical validation before it can carry clinical meaning. The no-score checklist in this article is intentionally interpreted through frequency, flexibility, context, and cost.
Can a people pleaser test diagnose trauma?
No. A pattern of appeasing, over-accommodating, or avoiding conflict cannot establish that trauma occurred. Trauma history requires information about actual exposure and its effects, not backward inference from one interpersonal style.
Can a people pleaser test tell me my attachment style?
No. People-pleasing behavior can overlap with processes associated with attachment anxiety in some individuals, but the constructs are not interchangeable. Attachment measures assess attachment-related dimensions or patterns; a people-pleasing checklist does not diagnose them. See Anxious Attachment Style for the separate evidence base.
Does saying yes a lot mean I am a people pleaser?
No. Frequency alone is too crude. Saying yes can reflect generosity, professional duties, caregiving, cultural norms, reciprocal relationships, genuine preference, or a temporary period of high responsibility. The more informative questions concern why you agree, whether you can choose otherwise, what the pattern costs, and whether the behavior is sustainable.
Does feeling guilty when I say no prove I have unhealthy boundaries?
No. Guilt may reflect learned responsibility, fear of disapproval, or a habit of over-responsibility, but it can also reflect a real obligation. The feeling itself does not decide whether a refusal was ethically appropriate. Context and the underlying commitment matter.
Can a low test score rule out a problem?
No. A general checklist can miss a highly specific pattern in one relationship or one domain. It can also miss behavior that the person interprets differently from the item wording. If a single relationship consistently leaves you unable to express needs or make choices freely, examine that situation directly rather than relying on a total score.
Can a high score tell me that someone else is manipulating me?
No. Your self-report describes your experience and behavior; it does not establish another person’s motives or diagnose their behavior. If you are evaluating manipulation, coercive control, or abuse, look at the other person’s repeated actions, the distribution of power, restrictions on autonomy, threats, surveillance, retaliation, and safety rather than using your own people-pleasing score as proof.
Should I try to stop caring what other people think?
That is usually the wrong target. Human relationships depend on responsiveness, reciprocity, reputation, empathy, and mutual influence. The goal is not indifference to others. It is a more flexible balance in which other people’s needs and reactions matter without automatically overruling your own values, limits, responsibilities, and informed choices.
What should I do if many of these statements fit me?
Start with one recurring situation and one small, context-appropriate change. Delay an automatic commitment, state a preference, ask for clarification, or make a clear request. If expressing yourself is the main difficulty, Assertive Communication offers evidence-informed communication skills. If the issue is deciding what you will and will not participate in, begin with Personal Boundaries. If the pattern causes substantial distress or impairment, consider discussing it with a qualified clinician.
The Bottom Line
A people pleaser test can be useful as a mirror, not a verdict. The strongest use of self-reflection is to notice repeated patterns of approval-seeking, self-silencing, overcommitment, conflict avoidance, or neglect of your own needs and then examine when, why, and at what cost those patterns occur.
Current research now includes dedicated people-pleasing measures, including a 2026 People Pleasing Scale and a 2025 Chinese People-Pleasing Questionnaire. That is meaningful progress in construct measurement. It still does not create a psychiatric diagnosis, universal cutoff, or one-step explanation for an individual’s behavior.
A good interpretation preserves distinctions. Kindness is not automatically people pleasing. Anxiety before conflict is not automatically an anxiety disorder. Accommodation does not prove trauma. Concern about relationships does not diagnose an attachment style. Difficulty saying no does not establish codependency. And no self-test can tell you that another person’s harmful behavior is your responsibility because your boundaries or assertiveness were imperfect.
The most useful question is therefore not “What label did I score?” It is “Where am I acting freely and sustainably, and where does fear, guilt, approval, or pressure repeatedly narrow my choices?” That question can lead to better observation, clearer boundaries, stronger communication, and—when needed—a more complete professional assessment.
For the broader definition, scientific status, causes, and relationship context behind this self-reflection tool, see People Pleasing: Signs, Causes, Relationships, and How to Change the Pattern.
Related Articles
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2022). DSM-5-TR: About DSM-5-TR. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/about-dsm
Blötner, C. (2026). Valuing others over oneself: Development and validation of a people pleasing scale in two German samples. Current Psychology, 45, Article 952. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-026-09519-2
Boyce, P., & Parker, G. (1989). Development of a scale to measure interpersonal sensitivity. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 23(3), 341–351. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2803146/
Clark, D. A., Steer, R. A., Beck, A. T., & Ross, L. (1995). Psychometric characteristics of revised Sociotropy and Autonomy Scales in college students. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(3), 325–334. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7726810/
Fritz, H. L., & Helgeson, V. S. (1998). Distinctions of unmitigated communion from communion: Self-neglect and overinvolvement with others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 121–140. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9686454/
Jack, D. C., & Dill, D. (1992). The Silencing the Self Scale: Schemas of intimacy associated with depression in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16(1), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1992.tb00242.x
Kuang, X., Li, H., Luo, W., Zhu, J., & Ren, F. (2025). The mental health implications of people-pleasing: Psychometric properties and latent profiles of the Chinese People-Pleasing Questionnaire. PsyCh Journal, 14(4), 500–512. https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.70016
Merten, T. (2025). The self-report fallacy: When diagnosis predominantly relies on subjective symptom report. Current Opinion in Psychology, 65, 102096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102096
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders (CDDR). https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240077263