The person's appearance, behavior, and history, along with a psychological evaluation, are usually sufficient to establish a diagnosis. There is no test to confirm this diagnosis. Because the criteria are subjective, some people may be wrongly diagnosed.

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.

Diagnosis of borderline personality disorder is based on a clinical assessment by a mental health professional. The best method is to present the criteria of the disorder to a person and to ask them if they feel that these characteristics accurately describe them. Actively involving people with BPD in determining their diagnosis can help them become more willing to accept it. Although some clinicians prefer not to tell people with BPD what their diagnosis is, either from concern about the stigma attached to this condition or because BPD used to be considered untreatable, it is usually helpful for the person with BPD to know their diagnosis. This helps them know that others have had similar experiences and can point them toward effective treatments.

In general, the psychological evaluation includes asking the patient about the beginning and severity of symptoms, as well as other questions about how symptoms impact the patient's quality of life. Issues of particular note are suicidal ideations, experiences with self-harm, and thoughts about harming others. Diagnosis is based both on the person's report of their symptoms and on the clinician's own observations. Additional tests for BPD can include a physical exam and laboratory tests to rule out other possible triggers for symptoms, such as thyroid conditions or substance abuse. The ICD-10 manual refers to the disorder as "emotionally unstable personality disorder" and has similar diagnostic criteria. In the DSM-5, the name of the disorder remains the same as in the previous editions.

The previous edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM IV-TR, defines histrionic personality disorder (in Cluster B) as:

The DSM-IV requires that a diagnosis for any specific personality disorder also satisfies a set of general personality disorder criteria.

ASPD commonly coexists with the following conditions:

When combined with alcoholism, people may show frontal function deficits on neuropsychological tests greater than those associated with each condition.

NPD has a high rate of comorbidity with other mental disorders. Individuals with NPD are prone to bouts of depression, often meeting criteria for co-occurring depressive disorders. In addition, NPD is associated with bipolar disorder, anorexia, and substance use disorders, especially cocaine. As far as other personality disorders, NPD may be associated with histrionic, borderline, antisocial, and paranoid personality disorders.

There is a significant difference between the number of those who would benefit from treatment and the number of those who are treated. The so-called "treatment gap" is a function of the disinclination of the afflicted to submit for treatment, an underdiagnosing of the disorder by healthcare providers, and the limited availability and access to state-of-the-art treatments. Nonetheless, individuals with BPD accounted for about 20 percent of psychiatric hospitalizations in one survey. The majority of individuals with BPD who are in treatment continue to use outpatient treatment in a sustained manner for several years, but the number using the more restrictive and costly forms of treatment, such as inpatient admission, declines with time.

Experience of services varies. Assessing suicide risk can be a challenge for clinicians, and patients themselves tend to underestimate the lethality of self-injurious behaviors. People with BPD typically have a chronically elevated risk of suicide much above that of the general population and a history of multiple attempts when in crisis. Approximately half the individuals who commit suicide meet criteria for a personality disorder. Borderline personality disorder remains the most commonly associated personality disorder with suicide.

After the death of a patient in 2014 NHS England was criticised by a coroner for the lack of commissioned services to support such patients. Evidence was given that 45% of mentally disordered females had BPD and there was no provision or priority for therapeutic psychological services. There were only 60 specialised inpatient beds in England – all in the North East or London.

The World Health Organization's (WHO) "International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems", 10th Edition (ICD-10) lists narcissistic personality disorder under "Other specific personality disorders". It is a requirement of ICD-10 that a diagnosis of any specific personality disorder also satisfies a set of general personality disorder criteria.

There is a considerable personality disorder diagnostic co-occurrence. Patients who meet the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria for one personality disorder are likely to meet the diagnostic criteria for another. Diagnostic categories provide clear, vivid descriptions of discrete personality types but the personality structure of actual patients might be more accurately described by a constellation of maladaptive personality traits.

"Sites used DSM-III-R criterion sets. Data obtained for purposes of informing the development of the DSM-IV-TR personality disorder diagnostic criteria."

Abbreviations used: "PPD – Paranoid Personality Disorder, SzPD – Schizoid Personality Disorder, StPD – Schizotypal Personality Disorder, ASPD – Antisocial Personality Disorder, BPD – Borderline Personality Disorder, HPD – Histrionic Personality Disorder, NPD – Narcissistic Personality Disorder, AvPD – Avoidant Personality Disorder, DPD – Dependent Personality Disorder, OCPD – Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder, PAPD – Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder."

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.

This diagnostic rubric is not recommended for general use because it is not clearly demarcated either from simple schizophrenia or from schizoid or paranoid personality disorders, or possibly autism and Asperger syndrome as currently diagnosed. If the term is used, three or four of the typical features listed above should have been present, continuously or episodically, for at least 2 years. The individual must never have met criteria for schizophrenia itself. A history of schizophrenia in a first-degree relative gives additional weight to the diagnosis but is not a prerequisite.

Currently, genetic research for the understanding of the development of personality disorders is severely lacking. However, there are a few possible risk factors currently in discovery. Researchers are currently looking into genetic mechanisms for traits such as aggression, fear and anxiety, which are associated with diagnosed individuals. More research is being conducted into disorder specific mechanisms.

Similar to adult personality disorders there are multiple causes and causal interactions for personality development disorders. In clinical practice it is important to view the disorder multi-perspectively and from an individual perspective. Biological and neurological causes need to be observed just as much as psychosocial factors. Looking at the disorder from only one perspective (e.g. (s)he had a bad childhood) often results in ignorance of important other factors or causal interactions. This might be one of the main reasons why traditional treatment methods often fail with these disorders. Only a multi-perspective view can provide for a multi-dimensional treatment approach which seems to be the key for these disorders.

The diagnosis personality development disorder should only be given carefully and after a longer period of evaluation. Also a thorough diagnostic evaluation is necessary. Parents should be questioned separately and together with the child or adolescent to evaluate the severity and duration of the problems. In addition standardized personality tests might be helpful. It is also useful to ask the family what treatment approaches they have already tried so far without success.

SPD can be first apparent in childhood and adolescence with solitariness, poor peer relationships, and underachievement in school. This may mark these children as different and make them subject to teasing.

Being a personality disorder, which are usually chronic and long-lasting mental conditions, schizoid personality disorder is not expected to improve with time without treatment; however, much remains unknown because it is rarely encountered in clinical settings.

Because of reduced levels of trust, there can be challenges in treating PPD. However, psychotherapy, antidepressants, antipsychotics and anti-anxiety medications can play a role when an individual is receptive to intervention.

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.

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.

People with schizoid personality disorder rarely seek treatment for their condition. This is an issue found in many personality disorders, which prevents many people who are afflicted with these conditions from coming forward for treatment: They tend to view their condition as not conflicting with their self-image and their abnormal perceptions and behaviors as rational and appropriate. There is little data on the effectiveness of various treatments on this personality disorder because it is seldom seen in clinical settings. However, those in treatment have the option of medication and therapy.

According to Professor Emily Simonoff of the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, "childhood hyperactivity and conduct disorder showed equally strong prediction of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and criminality in early and mid-adult life. Lower IQ and reading problems were most prominent in their relationships with childhood and adolescent antisocial behaviour."

Personality development disorders usually need a complex and multi-dimensional treatment approach (Adam & Breithaupt-Peters, 2010). Since the problems are complex, treatment needs to affect the conditions in all impaired functional and social areas. Both educational and therapeutic methods are helpful and problem and strength based approaches work hand in hand. Parents need to be included as well as the school environment. Treatment methods need to be flexible and adjustable to the individual situation. Even elements of social work can be helpful when supporting the families and in some cases medication might be necessary. When suicidal behaviors or self-injuries are prominent treatment might best be done in a hospital.

For some personality development disorders (e.g. borderline personality disorder) treatment methods from adults can be adapted (e.g. dialectical behavior therapy, Miller et a., 2006).

According to Theodore Millon, the schizotypal is one of the easiest personality disorders to identify but one of the most difficult to treat with psychotherapy. Persons with STPD usually consider themselves to be simply eccentric, productive, or nonconformist. As a rule, they underestimate maladaptiveness of their social isolation and perceptual distortions. It is not so easy to gain rapport with people who suffer from STPD due to the fact that increasing familiarity and intimacy usually increase their level of anxiety and discomfort. In most cases they do not respond to informality and humor.

Group therapy is recommended for persons with STPD only if the group is well structured and supportive. Otherwise, it could lead to loose and tangential ideation. Support is especially important for schizotypal patients with predominant paranoid symptoms, because they will have a lot of difficulties even in highly structured groups.

The PCL-R, the PCL:SV, and the PCL:YV are highly regarded and widely used in criminal justice settings, particularly in North America. They may be used for risk assessment and for assessing treatment potential and be used as part of the decisions regarding bail, sentence, which prison to use, parole, and regarding whether a youth should be tried as a juvenile or as an adult. There have been several criticisms against its use in legal settings. They include the general criticisms against the PCL-R, the availability of other risk assessment tools which may have advantages, and the excessive pessimism surrounding the prognosis and treatment possibilities of those who are diagnosed with psychopathy.

The interrater reliability of the PCL-R can be high when used carefully in research but tend to be poor in applied settings. In particular Factor 1 items are somewhat subjective. In sexually violent predator cases the PCL-R scores given by prosecution experts were consistently higher than those given by defense experts in one study. The scoring may also be influenced by other differences between raters. In one study it was estimated that of the PCL-R variance, about 45% was due to true offender differences, 20% was due to which side the rater testified for, and 30% was due to other rater differences.

To aid a criminal investigation, certain interrogation approaches may be used to exploit and leverage the personality traits of suspects thought to have psychopathy and make them more likely to divulge information.

Being a personality disorder, which are usually chronic and long-lasting mental conditions, avoidant personality disorder is not expected to improve with time without treatment. It is a poorly studied personality disorder and in light of prevalence rates, societal costs, and the current state of research, AvPD qualifies as a neglected disorder.

Data from the 2001–02 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions indicates a prevalence rate of 2.36% in the American general population. It appears to occur with equal frequency in males and females. In one study, it was seen in 14.7% of psychiatric outpatients.