This   level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Psychiatry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force.

I thought this pd was is the DSM-III but was removed in the IV in favor of Dysthymia? Шизомби ( talk) 14:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The American Psychiatric Association has not released its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders into public domain, but claims copyright. The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter of complaint ( Ticket:2010030910040817, for those with access) about the use of their diagnostic criteria in this and a number of other articles. Currently, this content is blanked pending investigation, which will last approximately one week. Please feel free to provide input at the copyright problems board listing during that time. Individuals with access to the books would be particularly welcome in helping to conduct the investigation. Assistance developing a plan to prevent misuse of the APA's material on Wikipedia projects would also be welcome. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I removed a sentence in the introduction which included the following: "[R]ecent research has shown it to be a distinct and valid diagnosis." Where this sentence used to be, I have included the following: "Some researchers argue that depressive personality disorder is sufficiently distinct from these other conditions so as to warrant a separate diagnosis." I think this more closely follows Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Moonharpoon ( talk) 10:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)moonharpoon reply

The section "Changes to Cluster C" no longer makes sense, since the accompanying diagram appears to have been deleted. Either the diagram should be replaced, or the section rewritten. -- Kramer Associates ( talk) 18:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments relating to the Axis 1 table are being automatically and instantaneously deleted, calling into question the objectivity of the entire page. The Axis 1 table is cryptically labled, undefined, not specifically sourced, not specifically referenced, abbreviations not defined, and conclusions absent. This table does not appear to be a result of peer-reviewed published research and thus does not qualify as anything more than unsubstantiated opinion. (no signature)

I agree. The table is unsourced, "pa" is not clear for general audiences, and it isn't clear how the values in the table relate to the text in all cases. I have added CN's to the table and the preceding study which is also unsourced, and a refimprove tag to highlight the problem. TricksterWolf ( talk) 16:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC) reply

It's been 10 years since and it is still missing a source. After searching and failing to find a source for the table I am going to remove it. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 04:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply

In the sources given (which, at least at a glance, are consistent with each other) there is a fifth subtype, and the restive subtype is not stated to have borderline features, only avoidant. This section needs to be corrected to match the information in the source. Anditres ( talk) 18:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I question the notability of the current specific citations of Millon's subtypes since those papers are now over 15 years old and superseded by information in the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory 4th edition which to my knowledge does not use these subtypes any more. To quote [1] on page 104: Ninety of the most common subtypes are described in Millon’s (2011) Disorders of Personality; many more are possible. (quote referring to [2]). [2] could be used to updatae these PD tables, although the "spectrum"-style structure that [2] uses is not easily summarisable in a table format. Also, there is still the issue that this newer citation is still 11 years old, and the work seems purely theoretical; I can't find any citations to support notability or validity of the Millon subtype or spectrum classifications. (Besides the fact that [2] is supposedly highly cited according to google scholar.)

The subtypes themselves, distinct from the MCMI-IV, have questionable validity and usefulness in a clinical or subclinical setting. Without reading [2], they don't seem to have any demonstrated relationship with treatment preferences or outcomes. This is especially an issue since Millon's subtypes are used on Wikipedia for so many PD articles. In [2], tables 5.1 and 5.2 on pages 281-282, and figure 18.4 on page 875 gave me a decent (although somewhat obtuse) summary of the book's approach. (Yeah that book is massive.)

Concerning also is the compelling ongoing questioning in academia about the validity of the MCMI-IV and related tools.[3] Which I plan to document in that wikipedia article. To quote [4]:

On balance, the instruments, unlike many others, are also supported by a rich though often less-than-understood theoretical backbone which lends depth and explanatory power, but which also can further complicate addressing psycho-legal questions. The authors, representing a mixed perspective on the inventories, generally conclude that while the MCMI-IV and MACI-II rely on a rich theoretical framework, the peer-reviewed literature is virtually non-existent, the need to rely on their predecessor instruments’ research literatures are limiting, and the modifying indices have questionable utility in the detecting of response bias.

The question still remains whether the Millon subtypes are notable enough to meet inclusion criteria in Wikipedia articles on PDs, with or without an attached criticism section.

[1] Grossman, Seth D., and Blaise Amendolace. Essentials of MCMI-IV assessment. John Wiley & Sons, 2017.

[2] Millon, Theodore. Disorders of personality: Introducing a DSM/ICD spectrum from normal to abnormal. Vol. 208. John Wiley & Sons, 2011.

[3] Mohammadi, Mohammad Reza, et al. "Diagnostic validity of millon clinical multiaxial inventory-IV (MCMI-IV)." Current Psychology (2022): 1-9.

[4] Sellbom, Martin, et al. "The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-IV (MCMI-IV) and Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory-II (MACI-II) in Legal Settings." Journal of Personality Assessment 104.2 (2022): 203-220. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 03:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC) reply