Personality Disorder Screening Tests: What Scores Can and Cannot Tell You
Updated: 3 days ago
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 12, 2026 · Editorial Policy
A personality disorder screening test is a brief questionnaire or interview intended to identify patterns that may deserve a more detailed clinical assessment. A score can help a clinician decide what to investigate, make an initial conversation more systematic, or monitor a particular dimension of difficulty. It does not establish whether someone has a personality disorder, determine which diagnostic criteria are met, or measure the person's worth, character, or future. Interpretation depends on the instrument, its validation studies, the setting, the respondent's circumstances, and what happens after screening. The American Psychiatric Association's DSM-5-TR assessment guidance explicitly describes assessment measures as aids to clinical decision-making, rather than a sole basis for diagnosis.
The central distinction is between identifying a possible clinical concern and establishing a diagnosis. A professional evaluation examines patterns of self-functioning and relationships over time, clinically significant distress or impairment, developmental and cultural context, and alternative explanations for the experiences reported. A 2024 evidence-based assessment review recommends combining self-report measures with a semistructured interview to verify the presence of personality disorder when indicated. Read that clinical assessment review.
What Does a Personality Disorder Screening Test Actually Screen For?
A broad personality disorder screen looks for responses associated with enduring problems in personality functioning or maladaptive personality features. It may ask about interpersonal difficulties, impulsivity, mistrust, emotion regulation, rigidity, social isolation, or related patterns. These items are deliberately economical. Their purpose is to flag a question for further investigation. Endorsing a question about perfectionism, for example, does not mean obsessive-compulsive personality disorder; reporting mistrust does not mean paranoid personality disorder; and describing relationship conflict does not establish borderline personality disorder.
For the distinction between a questionnaire score and a clinician-rated measure of self and interpersonal functioning, see Level of Personality Functioning Scale: What the LPFS Measures.
Some tools screen for the possibility of any personality disorder under the diagnostic framework used in their validation research. Others target a particular condition, especially borderline personality disorder (BPD). Still others assess maladaptive personality traits or broader functioning without being designed to serve as a yes-or-no diagnostic screen. The choice matters. A score from a BPD screen cannot establish a different personality disorder; a general trait inventory cannot provide a validated cutoff for every DSM-5-TR category.
Clinical concepts should be kept separate. A personality trait is a relatively enduring tendency that can occur throughout the population. A maladaptive trait is a pattern measured within a particular clinical framework. Personality functioning concerns how someone experiences and regulates selfhood and relationships. A symptom is a reported experience or observed feature; a screening result is the output of a specified measurement procedure; a diagnosis is a clinical judgment against a recognized set of requirements. These are related, but they are distinct forms of information.
Screening, Self-Report Inventories, and Diagnostic Interviews
Screening: deciding whether further evaluation may be useful
A brief screener typically prioritizes feasibility and sensitivity. It may be administered in primary care, mental health services, research, or a focused intake assessment. A positive result suggests that further questions are warranted. A negative result makes the screened-for problem less likely to be detected by that particular method, but it may miss people with meaningful difficulties. Screening is especially limited when a tool is applied to a population different from the one in which it was validated.
Self-report inventories: describing patterns and severity
Longer inventories can characterize multiple domains, including maladaptive traits or specific features of personality functioning. The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) and its brief form are examples of instruments associated with the alternative dimensional model of personality pathology. These are not universal online diagnosis generators. The APA makes the PID-5 family and instructions available among its DSM-5-TR assessment measures, alongside broader symptom and disability measures. A questionnaire's score must be interpreted within its own manual, scoring method, validation population, and intended professional use.
Structured and semistructured clinical interviews: checking diagnostic requirements
Clinician-administered assessments such as the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Personality Disorders (SCID-5-PD) investigate whether specific requirements are satisfied, seeking clarification and examples rather than simply summing endorsed statements. The interviewer considers persistence, context, impairment, the person's history, and possible competing explanations. Structured methods support consistency, but their accuracy also depends on competent use and the quality of clinical information. A systematic evidence-based assessment discussion supports a multimethod approach rather than relying on one self-report score.
Common Personality Disorder Screening Tests and What Their Results Mean
SAPAS: a short general personality disorder screen
The Standardised Assessment of Personality–Abbreviated Scale (SAPAS) consists of eight yes/no questions intended as a brief screen for possible personality disorder. The original validation study involved 60 psychiatric patients and compared the screen with a DSM-IV diagnostic interview. In that sample, a threshold of 3 or more had sensitivity of 0.94 and specificity of 0.85. The researchers characterized their findings as preliminary evidence for a routine clinical screening tool. Those figures describe this study's participants and reference standard, not an accuracy guarantee in the general public or under ICD-11. Moran and colleagues' original SAPAS validation.
The score is a prompt for further evaluation. It cannot identify one particular personality disorder, automatically establish severity, or substitute for an exploration of functioning and context. Some questions describe experiences that also occur in other clinical conditions or during difficult life circumstances.
Iowa Personality Disorder Screen: a short screening interview
The Iowa Personality Disorder Screen (IPDS) was developed as a brief structured interview. Its early prospective validation included 52 nonpsychotic psychiatric inpatients and outpatients. A five-item selection yielded reported sensitivity of 92% and specificity of 79%; including a different number of items changed the balance. The original authors explicitly presented the evidence as preliminary. The small and selected prospective sample calls for care in generalizing those performance estimates. Langbehn and colleagues' study.
MSI-BPD: screening specifically for borderline personality disorder
The McLean Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder (MSI-BPD) is a ten-item self-report measure developed for DSM-IV BPD screening. In the original validation sample of 200 people with treatment histories, 139 met the reference interview's criteria for BPD. A score of 7 or more yielded sensitivity of approximately 0.81 and specificity of 0.85 in that sample. The unusually high proportion with BPD was a feature of the recruitment setting, so its positive predictive value cannot be carried over directly to a low-prevalence community setting. Zanarini and colleagues' original validation.
A later Dutch validation with 159 female participants found that a threshold of 7 yielded sensitivity of 0.71 and specificity of 0.96, while a threshold of 5 yielded sensitivity of 0.94 and specificity of 0.86. This illustrates how a threshold and study population influence the balance between false negatives and false positives. It does not establish that one cutoff is universally superior. André, Verschuere, and Lobbestael's validation.
A high MSI-BPD score indicates the need to explore possible BPD features with a qualified professional. It cannot establish the diagnosis, distinguish all co-occurring conditions, or predict that a person will self-harm, engage in dangerous behavior, or have a particular relationship outcome. BPD presentations and individual trajectories vary.
Personality disorder questionnaires, IPDE screens, and trait inventories
Longer screening and self-report instruments have included the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire family and screening forms associated with the International Personality Disorder Examination (IPDE). Their scoring and development contexts differ, and some originated under DSM-IV or ICD-10, before current dimensional developments. They should not be treated as interchangeable with the SAPAS, IPDS, or MSI-BPD. A study comparing personality disorder screens explains why many longer questionnaires were developed for broader assessment rather than efficient initial screening.
The PID-5 provides information about maladaptive trait domains in the DSM alternative model. It is relevant to dimensional assessment but does not produce a universal diagnostic percentage. The same distinction applies to measures intended to estimate ICD-11 personality disorder severity or trait qualifiers. A measure's construct determines what its scores can describe.
What a Positive Screening Result Can—and Cannot—Tell You
A positive screen means that the person's answers reached the particular instrument's predefined threshold. It can signal a pattern worth investigating, support a referral, or alert a clinician to information that was not obvious during an initial conversation. Its meaning is conditional: it depends on the tool's sensitivity and specificity, the likely prevalence of the target condition in that setting, the selection of respondents, and the diagnostic standard used in validation.
It does not establish the presence of a personality disorder. Even a well-validated instrument produces false positives. Someone experiencing depression, trauma-related distress, severe anxiety, recent major stress, substance-related effects, or interpersonal adversity may endorse several questions. These experiences deserve appropriate evaluation on their own terms. The evidence-based assessment review emphasizes verification through multimethod clinical assessment.
A screening threshold is also not a measure of moral responsibility, severity of abusive behavior, danger to others, or whether a relationship should continue. Those are separate questions requiring attention to specific actions, safety, boundaries, and circumstances.
What a Negative or Low Score Can—and Cannot—Tell You
A negative result means the screen did not cross its selected cutoff at the time and under the conditions of administration. It can be useful when interpreted in the right setting, but it does not guarantee absence of disorder, particularly when an instrument has imperfect sensitivity, a person interprets questions differently from the validation group, or clinically relevant features are outside the questionnaire's scope.
A low score also does not invalidate a person's distress. Treatment for depression, anxiety, trauma symptoms, relationship problems, or difficulties with functioning may be useful regardless of whether a personality disorder diagnosis is eventually considered. If problems are persistent or impairing, a professional discussion remains reasonable despite a negative screener.
Why the Same Score Means Different Things in Different Settings
Sensitivity, specificity, and false results
Sensitivity is the proportion of people with the target condition, as determined by the reference assessment, who screen positive. Specificity is the proportion without that condition who screen negative. A highly sensitive screen may catch more possible cases at the expense of more false positives. A highly specific cutoff may reduce false positives while missing some cases. Neither statistic is the probability that a particular reader has a disorder after obtaining a score.
The original SAPAS study's sensitivity and specificity changed across thresholds, and the original MSI-BPD findings were obtained from a treatment-experienced sample. These studies make a crucial interpretive point: a threshold is an empirical decision within a particular validation design, not a universal clinical law. SAPAS threshold study; MSI-BPD threshold study.
Positive predictive value depends on prevalence
Positive predictive value asks what proportion of positive results actually have the target condition in a defined setting. It changes with prevalence even when sensitivity and specificity stay constant. A screen that performs convincingly in a specialty clinic may produce many more false alarms when offered indiscriminately to an entire population. In the opposite direction, a negative result in a high-risk service may warrant additional follow-up even when the same result would be reassuring in another setting.
For an illustrative calculation rather than a prediction about any real test, consider a hypothetical screen with 90% sensitivity and 85% specificity. Among 1,000 people in a setting where 10% actually have the target condition, the screen would correctly flag about 90 people and incorrectly flag about 135, making only 40% of positive screens true positives. In a different setting with 50% prevalence, the very same sensitivity and specificity would yield approximately 86% true positives among those who screen positive. This simple example is why online claims that a score means a particular percentage chance of illness need a stated population and validated model.
Cutoffs, translations, and scoring conditions
A paper may report different optimal cutoffs because the research participants, language adaptation, sampling method, clinical reference interview, or optimization priorities differ. That does not justify choosing whichever cutoff makes a person's preferred conclusion appear true. In one Dutch MSI-BPD validation, alternative thresholds produced markedly different sensitivity-specificity balances. A clinician evaluates which version is supported for a particular person and context.
A translated questionnaire is also more than a list of translated words. Its meaning, measurement properties, and cutoff behavior require study. A website offering a short quiz without clear provenance, scoring documentation, validation research, and intended population gives readers too little information to interpret its result responsibly.
Does a Screening Score Measure Personality Disorder Severity?
Usually not. Screening status, symptom count, trait scores, and overall severity answer different questions. A higher score on a particular screen can mean more items were endorsed; it does not automatically mean greater functional impairment, more severe interpersonal difficulty, or greater need for intensive care. Some inventories describe dimension scores and facets, but those too require appropriately validated interpretation.
The distinction is particularly important in ICD-11. The World Health Organization's 2024 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements organizes personality disorders by severity—mild, moderate, or severe—with optional prominent trait qualifiers (negative affectivity, detachment, dissociality, disinhibition, and anankastia) and an optional borderline pattern qualifier. Severity requires a broad clinical appraisal of personality dysfunction and associated impact. A generic internet score cannot be translated into an ICD-11 severity code.
In the DSM-5-TR categorical approach, clinicians assess defined disorder categories. The alternative DSM model also emphasizes impairment in personality functioning alongside pathological traits. Core domains of functioning include identity, self-direction, empathy, and intimacy. A questionnaire may contribute information about one or several domains without settling the clinical requirement for dysfunction.
DSM-5-TR and ICD-11: Why the Diagnostic Framework Matters
The DSM-5-TR retains familiar categorical personality disorder diagnoses, including borderline, avoidant, narcissistic, and obsessive-compulsive personality disorders. It also includes an alternative model of personality disorders that evaluates personality functioning and pathological traits. The ICD-11 instead organizes the main diagnosis around level of severity and prominent trait features, with a borderline pattern qualifier when applicable. These models overlap in important clinical territory but do not map one-to-one. The WHO's ICD-11 CDDR is the authoritative international clinical guidance, while the APA's DSM-5-TR assessment resources describe the intended role of APA-associated assessment instruments.
A screening questionnaire validated for DSM-IV categories, such as an early study of SAPAS or MSI-BPD, cannot automatically establish a diagnosis or severity level within ICD-11. The instrument's age does not make it useless; it clarifies the importance of checking its purpose, reference standard, and external validation.
What Happens During a Professional Evaluation After a Screen?
A clinician typically starts by clarifying why the person sought help and what they would like to change. Assessment explores difficulties across different settings and periods, symptoms and their development, the person's strengths and adaptive capacities, relationship patterns, occupational and educational functioning, coping, and the influence of current adversity or support. Identity, self-direction, empathy, and intimacy are examined when relevant to the personality-functioning model used.
The clinician may use structured or semistructured interviews, ask for examples, review earlier treatment information with consent, and consider collateral history when appropriate and authorized. The process also examines whether depression, anxiety disorders, PTSD, obsessive-compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder, dissociative symptoms, psychotic disorders, ADHD, autism, substance use, medication effects, or physical conditions better explain some findings. These are meaningful differential questions rather than automatic exclusions or reasons to assume one cause.
The NICE BPD guidance specifies a broad assessment of psychosocial and occupational functioning, co-occurring disorders, strengths, vulnerabilities, and practical support needs. For possible antisocial personality disorder, the NICE guideline similarly calls for comprehensive assessment and structured methods when feasible. The APA 2024 BPD guideline emphasizes a person-centered psychiatric assessment and suggests a quantitative measure to identify symptoms and impairments relevant to care. That suggestion supports measured clinical follow-up, not diagnosis from a score alone.
A full assessment can take more than one encounter, especially if symptoms fluctuate, prior records are incomplete, or multiple conditions need attention. The eventual formulation should help identify priorities for care, rather than merely attach a label.
Problems That Can Distort an Online Test Result
Current distress and life circumstances
Acute stress, grief, unstable housing, unsafe relationships, depression, anxiety, trauma reactions, sleep disruption, and substance use can alter how questions are understood and answered. Enduring difficulties and current states can also coexist. A responsible evaluator considers both instead of assuming that a questionnaire captures a timeless, fixed essence of the person.
Wording, culture, and neurodevelopmental differences
Items about eye contact, closeness, distrust, self-reliance, emotional expressiveness, or social rules may have different meanings across cultures and life circumstances. Some people with autism or ADHD may describe longstanding social or behavioral differences for reasons that require their own developmental assessment. A screening result cannot decide which explanatory model fits. The WHO clinical requirements situate diagnosis within the person's developmental and social context.
Response style, context, and online quiz design
A person might minimize painful experiences, endorse unusually extreme statements during a crisis, interpret a term differently than intended, or answer in a way they believe an evaluator expects. Even honest and careful responding does not overcome poor instrument design. An anonymous website may provide no psychometric evidence, omit instructions, change established items, or present percentages without a mathematical interpretation. Reliability and validity belong to tested forms of measurement, not simply to attractive score reports.
A High BPD Test Score Is Not a Forecast of Self-Harm or Suicide
Some BPD-related instruments ask about high-risk experiences because those experiences can be clinically important. A score on a BPD screener, however, is not a validated individualized suicide-risk prediction, and the presence of BPD does not imply that every person has a history of self-injury, suicidal behavior, or aggression. Risk requires a separate, current and individualized assessment.
If someone is at immediate risk of harming themselves or another person, urgent local emergency help is appropriate regardless of the screening score. If the concern is significant but not immediate, professional evaluation and a safety conversation can proceed without waiting for a personality disorder label. The APA's 2024 BPD practice guideline includes assessment of suicide, self-injury, and aggressive behavior within an overall psychiatric evaluation.
Can a Screening Result Help With Treatment?
A screen can help start a useful conversation, reveal overlooked difficulties, identify symptom dimensions to explore, or support decisions about further assessment. Repeated measures may help track a specified construct over time when the measure is appropriate for monitoring change. But scores from different instruments should not be compared as though they used one common severity scale, and a higher number does not automatically call for medication or a more intensive treatment setting.
Treatment decisions follow a clinical formulation, functional needs, safety considerations, co-occurring conditions, and the person's preferences. For BPD, the APA's 2024 guideline recommends structured psychotherapy supported by the evidence and collaborative treatment planning. That disorder-specific guidance should not be projected automatically onto every personality disorder. A screening questionnaire's function is to support appropriate care navigation, not select a universal treatment algorithm.
What to Do If You Took a Personality Disorder Test Online
Start by identifying the exact instrument, rather than relying on the website's headline. Record the instrument name, version, language, scoring instructions, total score, and whether the site explains its validation sample and clinical threshold. If you cannot establish those details, treat the result as an informal prompt to reflect on experiences, not a clinical finding.
Next, consider what prompted you to take the test. Are there persistent difficulties with identity, emotional regulation, trust, close relationships, self-direction, work, or daily functioning? When did those difficulties begin, in what circumstances do they occur, and which patterns remain even when stress decreases? Concrete experiences are more informative for a clinician than a quiz's automatically assigned label.
If your difficulties are longstanding, distressing, or impairing, discuss them with a qualified mental health professional, such as a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist who has experience in personality assessment. You can ask what the screen was designed to detect, whether it is validated for your circumstances, and whether a structured clinical assessment is indicated. If the screen was negative but the difficulties continue, ask for an evaluation of the difficulties themselves.
Do not use test scores to diagnose a partner, former partner, coworker, or family member. A third-party description can identify troubling conduct or safety concerns, but it cannot establish the person's internal experiences, history, diagnostic exclusions, or professional assessment results. In a harmful relationship, decisions about safety and boundaries can be grounded in behavior without a clinical label.
Questions to Ask a Clinician About Screening Results
A useful discussion can include: Which instrument was used, and what was it validated to identify? What does this specific cutoff mean for someone with my history? Did the score assess symptoms, personality traits, personality functioning, or an entire disorder? What are the most plausible alternative explanations for my responses? Would a structured personality disorder interview add useful information? What strengths and areas of functioning should be considered? Can help start now even if diagnosis remains uncertain?
If a professional has already given a diagnosis, it is reasonable to ask which classification system was used and what evidence supports the conclusion. A well-explained diagnosis can guide treatment, and assessment findings may be reconsidered when new evidence emerges. The process should make the person an informed participant in care.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a reliable online test for personality disorders?
Some validated screening questionnaires are available in electronic formats, but reliability and validity depend on the particular version, administration, population, and intended use. An internet quiz that does not identify its source or validation evidence cannot be assumed to be clinically reliable. Even a validated screener supplies a preliminary indication rather than a formal diagnosis.
Can a personality disorder screening test diagnose all 10 DSM personality disorders?
No. Broad screens may flag possible personality pathology, whereas condition-specific screens focus on one disorder and inventories may measure traits or functioning. A clinical assessment must consider the relevant diagnostic model and disorder-specific requirements.
What is a positive score on the SAPAS?
In the original preliminary study of 60 psychiatric patients, 3 or more of 8 items was studied as a screening threshold. That result justified considering fuller assessment; it was not a general-population diagnosis. Original study.
Does a score of 7 on the MSI-BPD mean I have borderline personality disorder?
No. A score of 7 or more was a threshold in the original MSI-BPD validation, not a clinical determination about any individual. Its performance varies across samples, and diagnostic assessment remains necessary. Original study.
If I score low, can I rule out a personality disorder?
No. The sensitivity of screening tools is imperfect, and some difficulties fall outside a particular questionnaire's scope. Ongoing distress or functional difficulties can warrant assessment irrespective of the score.
Can trauma, autism, ADHD, or mood symptoms affect a screen?
Yes. Some question wording and experiences overlap across conditions, while the relevant history and mechanisms may differ. A professional evaluates developmental history, timing, current symptoms, and clinical context rather than interpreting one instrument as an all-purpose differential test.
Can an online test measure whether I am a narcissist, psychopath, or sociopath?
Everyday labels and informal quizzes cannot establish a personality disorder. Narcissistic traits and narcissistic personality disorder are distinct. Psychopathy is a research and assessment construct used in some specialized settings; sociopathy is a nonstandard popular term. Neither should be inferred from a generic internet screening score. When behavior is harmful, evaluate the specific behavior and safety consequences directly.
Are Cluster A, B, and C test scores official diagnoses?
No. DSM cluster labels organize certain historical categorical presentations; they are not universal scoring categories and do not describe the ICD-11 severity-and-trait model. A website reporting a Cluster B percentage has to identify what was actually measured and validated before a reader can interpret it.
Are quiet BPD and covert narcissism official test categories?
These are common informal or popular descriptions, not separate official DSM-5-TR or ICD-11 personality disorder diagnoses. A score labeled with either term must be evaluated according to its actual items and psychometric evidence rather than the marketing name.
Should I take multiple quizzes until the results agree?
Repeated unsupervised quizzes can create an appearance of consensus while repeating similar items or biases. If your concern is affecting daily life, a focused professional conversation is more informative than accumulating labels from unrelated websites.
Can a clinician diagnose a personality disorder at the first visit?
Sometimes an initial interview yields a strong provisional formulation, but a careful assessment may require additional visits, records, structured questions, or observation over time. The appropriate pace depends on the clinical presentation. Treatment of urgent problems can begin before every diagnostic question is settled.
Does a personality disorder screening result mean I cannot recover?
No. A screen offers no reliable individual prognosis. Prognosis and treatment planning require understanding the actual clinical presentation, needs, resources, and response to care. The APA's updated BPD guidance emphasizes evidence-based treatment and person-centered planning.
Related Articles
For a practical distinction between general traits and psychiatric diagnosis, read Can the Big Five Diagnose Mental Illness? Why Personality Traits Are Not Diagnoses. For the different measurement purpose of neuroticism, see Neuroticism and Personality Disorders: Dimensional Traits and Clinical Diagnosis. The wider professional evaluation pathway and SCID-5-PD interview will be linked here when their dedicated English Hub articles are published.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2024). The American Psychiatric Association practice guideline for the treatment of patients with borderline personality disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 181(11), 1024–1028. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.24181010.
American Psychiatric Association. (n.d.). DSM-5-TR online assessment measures. Official professional resource.
André, J. A., Verschuere, B., & Lobbestael, J. (2015). Diagnostic value of the Dutch version of the McLean Screening Instrument for BPD (MSI-BPD). Journal of Personality Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2014_28_148.
Langbehn, D. R., Pfohl, B. M., Reynolds, S., et al. (1999). The Iowa Personality Disorder Screen: Development and preliminary validation of a brief screening interview. Journal of Personality Disorders, 13(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.1999.13.1.75.
Moran, P., Leese, M., Lee, T., Walters, P., Thornicroft, G., & Mann, A. (2003). Standardised Assessment of Personality–Abbreviated Scale (SAPAS): Preliminary validation of a brief screen for personality disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 183(3), 228–232. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.183.3.228.
Morse, J. Q., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2007). Screening for personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21(2), 179–198. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2007.21.2.179.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2009). Antisocial personality disorder: Prevention and management (CG77; subsequent updates). Official recommendations.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2009). Borderline personality disorder: Recognition and management (CG78). Official recommendations.
Widiger, T. A., Hines, A., & Crego, C. (2024). Evidence-based assessment of personality disorder. Assessment, 31(1), 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911231176461.
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. Official WHO publication.
Zanarini, M. C., Vujanovic, A. A., Parachini, E. A., Boulanger, J. L., Frankenburg, F. R., & Hennen, J. (2003). A screening measure for BPD: The McLean Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder (MSI-BPD). Journal of Personality Disorders, 17(6), 568–573. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.17.6.568.25355.