The continued evolution of the diagnosis of Personality Disorders
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21827/ijpp.11.42317Keywords:
personality disorders, Alternative Model of Personality Disorders, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, International Classification of Diseases, categorical approach, dimensional model, mixed/hybrid approach, HiTOPAbstract
This paper traces the evolution of the diagnostic formulations for personality disorders (PDs) through the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2022) and in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11; World Health Organization, 2019). It outlines key arguments for and against three major diagnostic approaches: the categorical approach that is currently in use in the DSM-5-TR, which lists ten categories of PDs; the dimensional model, which diagnoses PDs according to five domains, their respective facets, and their severity; and the mixed/hybrid approach in Section III of the DSM-5-TR, which has been proposed as an Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) diagnosis. Finally, three case studies are compared and contrasted using all three approaches. All three diagnostic systems appear to have advantages and disadvantages, although the dimensional and mixed/hybrid seem to be gaining adherents, particularly among younger mental health professionals.
Published
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2025 Frederick L. Coolidge, Daniel L. Segal, Apeksha Srivastava, Dhwani P. Sadaphal

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Submission of an original manuscript to the IJPP will be taken to mean that it represents original work not previously published, that it is not being considered elsewhere for publication and, if accepted for publication, it will be published online. Copyright remains with the author.
The journal takes the stance that the publication of scholarly research is meant to disseminate knowledge and, in a non-profit regime, benefits neither publisher nor author financially. It sees itself as having an obligation to its authors and to society to make content available online now that the technology allows for such a possibility.