Perhaps due to their perceived rarity, the dissociative disorders (including DID) were not initially included in the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID), which is designed to make psychiatric diagnoses more rigorous and reliable. Instead, shortly after the publication of the initial SCID a freestanding protocol for dissociative disorders (SCID-D) was published. This interview takes about 30 to 90 minutes depending on the subject's experiences. An alternative diagnostic instrument, the Dissociative Disorders Interview Schedule, also exists but the SCID-D is generally considered superior. The Dissociative Disorders Interview Schedule (DDIS) is a highly structured interview that discriminates among various DSM-IV diagnoses. The DDIS can usually be administered in 30–45 minutes.

Other questionnaires include the Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES), Perceptual Alterations Scale, Questionnaire on Experiences of Dissociation, Dissociation Questionnaire, and the Mini-SCIDD. All are strongly intercorrelated and except the Mini-SCIDD, all incorporate absorption, a normal part of personality involving narrowing or broadening of attention. The DES is a simple, quick, and validated questionnaire that has been widely used to screen for dissociative symptoms, with variations for children and adolescents. Tests such as the DES provide a quick method of screening subjects so that the more time-consuming structured clinical interview can be used in the group with high DES scores. Depending on where the cutoff is set, people who would subsequently be diagnosed can be missed. An early recommended cutoff was 15-20. The reliability of the DES in non-clinical samples has been questioned.

The fourth, revised edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) diagnoses DID according to the diagnostic criteria found in section 300.14 (dissociative disorders). It has also been found difficult to diagnose the disorder in the first place, due to there not being a universal agreement of the definition of dissociation. The criteria require that an adult be recurrently controlled by two or more discrete identities or personality states, accompanied by memory lapses for important information that is not caused by alcohol, drugs or medications and other medical conditions such as complex partial seizures. While otherwise similar, the diagnostic criteria for children also specifies symptoms must not be confused with imaginative play. Diagnosis is normally performed by a clinically trained mental health professional such as a psychiatrist or psychologist through clinical evaluation, interviews with family and friends, and consideration of other ancillary material. Specially designed interviews (such as the SCID-D) and personality assessment tools may be used in the evaluation as well. Since most of the symptoms depend on self-report and are not concrete and observable, there is a degree of subjectivity in making the diagnosis. People are often disinclined to seek treatment, especially since their symptoms may not be taken seriously; thus dissociative disorders have been referred to as "diseases of hiddenness".

The diagnosis has been criticized by supporters of therapy as a cause or the sociocognitive hypothesis as they believe it is a culture-bound and often health care induced condition. The social cues involved in diagnosis may be instrumental in shaping patient behavior or attribution, such that symptoms within one context may be linked to DID, while in another time or place the diagnosis could have been something other than DID. Other researchers disagree and argue that the existence of the condition and its inclusion in the DSM is supported by multiple lines of reliable evidence, with diagnostic criteria allowing it to be clearly discriminated from conditions it is often mistaken for (schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder, and seizure disorder). That a large proportion of cases are diagnosed by specific health care providers, and that symptoms have been created in nonclinical research subjects given appropriate cueing has been suggested as evidence that a small number of clinicians who specialize in DID are responsible for the creation of alters through therapy.

The lifetime prevalence of dissociative disorders varies from 10% in the general population to 46% in psychiatric inpatients. Diagnosis can be made with the help of structured interviews such as the Dissociative Disorders Interview Schedule (DDIS) and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Dissociative Disorders (SCID-D), or with the Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) which is a self-assessment questionnaire. Some diagnostic tests have also been adapted and/or developed for use with children and adolescents such as the Children's Version of the Response Evaluation Measure (REM-Y-71), Child Interview for Subjective Dissociative Experiences, Child Dissociative Checklist (CDC), Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Dissociation Subscale, and the Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children Dissociation Subscale.

There are problems with classification, diagnosis and therapeutic strategies of dissociative and conversion disorders which can be understood by the historic context of hysteria. Even current systems used to diagnose DD such as the DSM-IV and ICD-10 differ in the way the classification is determined. In most cases mental health professionals are still hesitant to diagnose patients with Dissociative Disorder, because before they are considered to be diagnosed with Dissociative Disorder these patients have more than likely been diagnosed with major depression, anxiety disorder, and most often post-traumatic disorder.

An important concern in the diagnosis of dissociative disorders is the possibility that the patient may be feigning symptoms in order to escape negative consequences. Young criminal offenders report much higher levels of dissociative disorders, such as amnesia. In one study it was found that 1% of young offenders reported complete amnesia for a violent crime, while 19% claimed partial amnesia. There have also been incidences in which people with dissociative identity disorder provide conflicting testimonies in court, depending on the personality that is present.

Diagnosis is based on the self-reported experiences of the person followed by a clinical assessment. Psychiatric assessment includes a psychiatric history and some form of mental status examination. Since some medical and psychiatric conditions mimic the symptoms of DPD, clinicians must differentiate between and rule out the following to establish a precise diagnosis: temporal lobe epilepsy, panic disorder, acute stress disorder, schizophrenia, migraine, drug use, brain tumour or lesion. No laboratory test for depersonalization-derealization disorder currently exists.

The diagnosis of depersonalization disorder can be made with the use of the following interviews and scales:

The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Dissociative Disorders (SCID-D) is widely used, especially in research settings. This interview takes about 30 minutes to 1.5 hours, depending on individual's experiences.

The Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) is a simple, quick, self-administered questionnaire that has been widely used to measure dissociative symptoms. It has been used in hundreds of dissociative studies, and can detect depersonalization and derealization experiences.

The Dissociative Disorders Interview Schedule (DDIS) is a highly structured interview which makes DSM-IV diagnoses of somatization disorder, borderline personality disorder and major depressive disorder, as well as all the dissociative disorders. It inquires about positive symptoms of schizophrenia, secondary features of dissociative identity disorder, extrasensory experiences, substance abuse and other items relevant to the dissociative disorders. The DDIS can usually be administered in 30–45 minutes.

The Cambridge Depersonalization Scale (CDS) is a method for determining the severity of depersonalization disorder. It has been proven and accepted as a valid tool for the diagnosis of depersonalization disorder in a clinical setting. It is also used in a clinical setting to differentiate minor episodes of depersonalization from actual symptoms of the disorder. Due to the success of the CDS, a group of Japanese researchers underwent the effort to translate the CDS into the J-CDS or the Japanese Cambridge Depersonalization Scale. Through clinical trials the Japanese research team successfully tested their scale and determined its accuracy. One limitation is that the scale does not allow for the differentiation between past and present episodes of depersonalization. It should also be noted that it may be difficult for the individual to describe the duration of a depersonalization episode, and thus the scale may lack accuracy. The project was conducted in the hope that it would stimulate further scientific investigations into depersonalization disorder.

Dissociative disorders (DD) are widely believed to have roots in traumatic childhood experience (abuse or loss), but symptomology often goes unrecognized or is misdiagnosed in children and adolescents. There are several reasons why recognizing symptoms of dissociation in children is challenging: it may be difficult for children to describe their internal experiences; caregivers may miss signals or attempt to conceal their own abusive or neglectful behaviors; symptoms can be subtle or fleeting; disturbances of memory, mood, or concentration associated with dissociation may be misinterpreted as symptoms of other disorders.

In addition to developing diagnostic tests for children and adolescents (see above), a number of approaches have been developed to improve recognition and understanding of dissociation in children. Recent research has focused on clarifying the neurological basis of symptoms associated with dissociation by studying neurochemical, functional and structural brain abnormalities that can result from childhood trauma. Others in the field have argued that recognizing disorganized attachment (DA) in children can help alert clinicians to the possibility of dissociative disorders.

Clinicians and researchers also stress the importance of using a developmental model to understand both symptoms and the future course of DDs. In other words, symptoms of dissociation may manifest differently at different stages of child and adolescent development and individuals may be more or less susceptible to developing dissociative symptoms at different ages. Further research into the manifestation of dissociative symptoms and vulnerability throughout development is needed. Related to this developmental approach, more research is required to establish whether a young patient’s recovery will remain stable over time.

Depersonalization disorder is classified differently in the DSM-IV-TR and in the ICD-10: In the DSM-IV-TR this disorder it is seen as a dissociative disorder; in the ICD-10 as an independent neurotic disorder. Whether depersonalization disorder should be characterized as a dissociative disorder can be discussed.

The DSM-IV-TR states that the fugue may have a duration from days to months, and recovery is usually rapid. However, some cases may be refractory. An individual usually has only one episode.

The psychological mechanism of conversion can be the most difficult aspect of a conversion diagnosis. Even if there is a clear antecedent trauma or other possible psychological trigger, it is still not clear exactly how this gives rise to the symptoms observed. Patients with medically unexplained neurological symptoms may not have any psychological stressor, hence the use of the term "functional neurological symptom disorder" in DSM-V as opposed to "conversion disorder", and DSM-V's removal of the need for a psychological trigger.

Empirical studies have found that the prognosis for conversion disorder varies widely, with some cases resolving in weeks, and others enduring for years or decades. There is also evidence that there is no cure for Conversion Disorder, and that although patients may go into remission, they can relapse at any point. Furthermore, many patients who are 'cured' continue to have some degree of symptoms indefinitely.

As it has already been mentioned, patients with organic personality disorder show a wide variety of sudden behavioural changes and dysfunctions. There are not a lot of information about the treatment of this mental health disorder. The pharmacological approach is the most common therapy among patients with organic personality disorder. However, the choice of drug therapy relies on the seriousness of patient's situation and what symptoms are shown. The choice and administration of specific drugs contribute to the reduction of symptoms of organic personality disorder. For this reason, it is crucial for patients' treatment to be assessed by clinical psychologists and psychiatrists before the administration of drug.

Additionally, the dysfunctions in expression of behaviour of patients with organic personality disorder and the development of symptom of irritability, which are caused by aggressive and self-injurious behaviours, can be dealt with the administration of carbamazepine. Moreover, the symptoms of this disorder can be decreased by the administration of valproic acid. Also, emotional irritability and signs of depression can be dealt with the use of nortriptyline and low-dose thioridazine. Except from the symptom of irritability, patients express aggressive behaviours. At the onset of drug therapy for effective treatment of anger and aggression, the drug of carbamazepine, phenobarbital, benztropine and haloperidol can be administrated in order to reduce the symptoms of patients with organic personality disorder. In addition, the use of propranolol may decrease the frequent behaviours of rage attacks.

Finally, it is important for patients to take part in psychotherapy sessions during the period of drug therapy. In this way, there is prevention and patients can be protected by negative effects of drugs on their organism and their behaviour. Furthermore, the clinicians can provide useful and helpful support to patients during these psychotherapy sessions. Thus, the combination of drug therapy with psychotherapy can lead to the reduction of symptoms of this disorder and the improvement of patients' situation.

The ICD-10 includes a diagnostic guideline for the wide group of personality and behavioural disorders. However, every disorder has its own diagnostic criteria. In case of the organic personality disorder, patient has to show at least three of the following diagnostic criteria over a six or more months period. organic personality disorder is associated with a large variety of symptoms, such as deficits in cognitive function, dysfunctional behaviours, psychosis, neurosis, emotional changes, alterations in expression function and irritability. Patients with organic personality disorder can present emotional lability that means their emotional expressions are unstable and fluctuating. In addition, patients show reduction in ability of perseverance with their goals and they express disinhibited behaviours, which are characterised by inappropriate sexual and antisocial actions. For instance, patients can show dissocial behaviours, like stealing. Moreover, according to diagnostic guideline of ICD-10, patients can suffer from cognitive disturbances and they present signs of suspiciousness and paranoid ideas. Additionally, patients may present alteration in process of language production that means there are changes in language rate and flow. Furthermore, patients may show changes in their sexual preference and hyposexuality symptoms.

Another common feature of personality of patients with organic personality disorder is their dysfunctional and maladaptive behaviour that causes serious problems in these patients, because they face problems with pursuit and achievement of their goals. It is worth to be mentioned that patients with organic personality disorder express a feeling of unreasonable satisfaction and euphoria. Also, the patients show aggressive behaviours sometimes and these serious dysfunctions in their behaviour can have effects on their life and their relationships with other people. Specifically patients show intense signs of anger and aggression because of their inability to handle their impulses. The type of this aggression is called "impulsive aggression". Furthermore, it is worth to be mentioned that the pattern of organic personality disorder presents some similarities with pattern of temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE). Specifically patients who suffer from this chronic disorder type of epilepsy, express aggressive behaviours, likewise it happens to patients with organic personality disorder. Another similar symptom between Temporal lobe epilepsy and organic personality disorder is the epileptic seizure. The symptom of epileptic seizure has influence on patients' personality that means it causes behavioural alterations". The Temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) is associated with the hyperexcitability of the medial temporal lobe (MTL) of patients. Finally, patients with organic personality disorder may present similar symptoms with patients, who suffer from the Huntington's disease as well. The symptoms of apathy and irritability are common between these two groups of patients.

Dissociative disorder not otherwise specified (DDNOS) is a mental health diagnosis for pathological dissociation that matches the DSM-5 criteria for a dissociative disorder, but does not fit the full criteria for any of the specifically identified subtypes, which include dissociative identity disorder, dissociative amnesia, and depersonalization/derealization disorder. The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) refers to the diagnosis as "Other dissociative and conversion disorders".

Examples of DDNOS include chronic and recurrent syndromes of mixed dissociative symptoms, identity disturbance due to prolonged and intense coercive persuasion, disorders similar to dissociative identity disorder, acute dissociative reactions to stressful events, and dissociative trance.

DDNOS is the most common dissociative disorder and is diagnosed in 40% of dissociative disorder cases. It is often co-morbid with other mental illnesses such as complex posttraumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, personality disorders, substance abuse disorders and eating disorders.

The utility of PTSD derived psychotherapies for assisting children with C-PTSD is uncertain. This area of diagnosis and treatment calls for caution in use of the category C-PTSD. Ford and van der Kolk have suggested that C-PTSD may not be as useful a category for diagnosis and treatment of children as a proposed category of developmental trauma disorder (DTD). For DTD to be diagnosed it requires a

'history of exposure to early life developmentally adverse interpersonal trauma such as sexual abuse, physical abuse, violence, traumatic losses of other significant disruption or betrayal of the child's relationships with primary caregivers, which has been postulated as an etiological basis for complex traumatic stress disorders. Diagnosis, treatment planning and outcome are always relational.'

Since C-PTSD or DTD in children is often caused by chronic maltreatment, neglect or abuse in a care-giving relationship the first element of the biopsychosocial system to address is that relationship. This invariably involves some sort of child protection agency. This both widens the range of support that can be given to the child but also the complexity of the situation, since the agency's statutory legal obligations may then need to be enforced.

A number of practical, therapeutic and ethical principles for assessment and intervention have been developed and explored in the field:

- Identifying and addressing threats to the child's or family's safety and stability are the first priority.

- A relational bridge must be developed to engage, retain and maximize the benefit for the child and caregiver.

- Diagnosis, treatment planning and outcome monitoring are always relational (and) strengths based.

- All phases of treatment should aim to enhance self-regulation competencies.

- Determining with whom, when and how to address traumatic memories.

- Preventing and managing relational discontinuities and psychosocial crises.

Recovery from this syndrome is situational, as some drug therapies have been effective in some individuals but not others. Patients may live in a variety of settings, including psychiatric hospitals, depending on the success of treatment. With successful treatment, an individual may live at home. In many of the reported cases, remission of symptoms occurred during the follow-up period.

This disorder can be dangerous to the patient and others, as a patient may interrogate or attack a person they believe to be a double. Inappropriate behavior such as stalking and physical or psychological abuse has been documented in some case studies. Consequently, many individuals suffering from this disorder are arrested for the resulting misconduct (see the case of Mr. B in #Presentation).

Because it is a rare and poorly understood condition, there is no definitive way to diagnose the Capgras delusion. Diagnosis is primarily made on psychological evaluation of the patient, who is most likely brought to a psychologist's attention by a family member or friend believed to be an imposter by the person under the delusion.

Studies suggest that the prevalence of paraphrenia in the elderly population is around 2-4%.

Hospitalization may be necessary during the acute phase of symptoms, and psychiatric care if the patient is a danger to self or others. A neurological consult is advised to rule out any organic cause.

The cause of the fugue state is related to dissociative amnesia, ("DSM-IV Codes 300.12") which has several other subtypes: selective amnesia, generalised amnesia, continuous amnesia, and systematised amnesia, in addition to the subtype "dissociative fugue".

Unlike retrograde amnesia (which is popularly referred to simply as "amnesia", the state where someone forgets events before brain damage), dissociative amnesia is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication, "DSM-IV Codes 291.1 & 292.83") or a neurological or other general medical condition (e.g., amnestic disorder due to a head trauma, "DSM-IV Codes 294.0"). It is a complex neuropsychological process.

As the person experiencing a dissociative fugue may have recently suffered the reappearance of an event or person representing an earlier life trauma, the emergence of an armoring or defensive personality seems to be for some, a logical apprehension of the situation.

Therefore, the terminology "fugue state" may carry a slight linguistic distinction from "dissociative fugue", the former implying a greater degree of "motion". For the purposes of this article then, a "fugue state" occurs while one is "acting out" a "dissociative fugue".

The DSM-IV defines as:

- sudden, unexpected travel away from home or one's customary place of work, with inability to recall one's past

- confusion about personal identity, or the assumption of a new identity

- significant distress or impairment

The "Merck Manual" defines "dissociative fugue" as:

In support of this definition, the "Merck Manual" further defines dissociative amnesia as:

While paraphrenia can occur in both men and women, it is more common in women, even after the difference has been adjusted for life expectancies. The ratio of women with paraphrenia to men with paraphrenia is anywhere from 3:1 to 45:2

In the opinion of Allen Frances, chair of the DSM-IV task force, the DSM-5's somatic symptom disorder brings with it a risk of mislabeling a sizable proportion of the population as mentally ill. “Millions of people could be mislabeled, with the burden falling disproportionately on women, because they are more likely to be casually dismissed as ‘catastrophizers’ when presenting with physical symptoms.”

According to the DSM-IV-TR, which classifies Ganser syndrome as a dissociative disorder, it is "the giving of approximate answers to questions (e.g. '2 plus 2 equals 5' when not associated with dissociative amnesia or dissociative fugue)."

Diagnosing Ganser syndrome is very challenging, because some measure of dishonesty is involved and because it is very rare.

Usually when giving wrong answers, they are only slightly off, showing that the individual understood the question. For instance, when asked how many legs a horse has they might say, "five." Although subjects appear confused in their answers, in other respects they appear to understand their surroundings.

A widely accepted treatment for the syndrome of subjective doubles has not been developed. Treatment methods for this disease sometimes include the prescription of antipsychotic drugs, however, the type of drug prescribed depends on the presence of other mental disorders. Antipsychotic drugs (also known as neuroleptics) such as risperidone, pimozide, or haloperidol may be prescribed to treat the underlying psychiatric illness.

In addition to drug therapy, interpersonal counseling has also been suggested as a method to ease relations between the patient and his/her suspected doubles. However, the relationship between the patient and his/her double is not always negative.

Treatment is dependent on the underlying cause, whether it is organic or psychological in origin. If depersonalization is a symptom of neurological disease, then diagnosis and treatment of the specific disease is the first approach. Depersonalization can be a cognitive symptom of such diseases as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis (MS), neuroborreliosis (Lyme disease), or any other neurological disease affecting the brain. For those suffering from depersonalization with migraine, tricyclic antidepressants are often prescribed.

If depersonalization is a symptom of psychological causes such as developmental trauma, treatment depends on the diagnosis. In case of dissociative identity disorder or DD-NOS as a developmental disorder, in which extreme developmental trauma interferes with formation of a single cohesive identity, treatment requires proper psychotherapy, and—in the case of additional (co-morbid) disorders such as eating disorders—a team of specialists treating such an individual. It can also be a symptom of borderline personality disorder, which can be treated in the long term with proper psychotherapy and psychopharmacology.

The treatment of chronic depersonalization is considered in depersonalization disorder.

A recently completed study at Columbia University in New York City has shown positive effects from transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to treat depersonalization disorder. Currently, however, the FDA has not approved TMS to treat DP.

A 2001 Russian study showed that naloxone, a drug used to reverse the intoxicating effects of opioid drugs, can successfully treat depersonalization disorder. According to the study: "In three of 14 patients, depersonalization symptoms disappeared entirely and seven patients showed a marked improvement. The therapeutic effect of naloxone provides evidence for the role of the endogenous opioid system in the pathogenesis of depersonalization."

Depersonalization is also a direct symptom of Lyme disease as well as other tick-borne diseases. If depersonalization is suspected a blood-test is required in search of anti-bodies.

Somatic symptom disorder has been a controversial diagnosis, since it was historically based primarily on negative criteria - that is, the absence of a medical explanation for the presenting physical complaints. Consequently, any person suffering from a poorly understood illness can potentially fulfill the criteria for this psychiatric diagnosis, even if they exhibit no psychiatric symptoms in the conventional sense. In 2013-4, there were several widely publicized cases of individuals being involuntarily admitted to psychiatric wards on the basis of this diagnosis alone. This has raised concerns about the consequences of potential misuse of this diagnostic category.