Methodology & Sources

Every clinical screen, every source, on one page

The full audit trail for every clinical screening instrument used on Mindshape. Each entry lists the original instrument, authors, publication of record, license status, our adaptation note, and current version stamp.

Clinical advisor program: onboarding

Mindshape is currently onboarding a named licensed clinical reviewer for ongoing review of every screening adaptation on this site. Until that arrangement is finalized and the reviewer's credentials are published here, treat every instrument-based screen as an educational adaptation of the source instrument cited below — useful for self-reflection, never as a clinical diagnosis. Source-instrument citations and adaptation version numbers are listed on each screen and in our full methodology.

Content review by Erin Caldwell

Whether a screen is scored correctly and whether it is worth reading are different questions. Erin Caldwell reviews for the second one: she is a content contributor who has a long-standing interest in personality typology, and on the neurodivergence pages she also reviews for lived-experience accuracy as a self-identified autistic and ADHD adult. Her review remit, and any reviews she has completed, are listed on her profile; a page carries her name only once she has actually read it.

This is not clinical sign-off. Erin Caldwell is not a clinician and does not review the validated-instrument screens listed below — PHQ-9, GAD-7, PCL-5, ITQ, MDQ, ACE-10, OCI-R or EAT-26. Lived experience is not a credential and we do not present it as one. The clinical-reviewer role described above is still open.

How we think about clinical content

  • Educational, never diagnostic. No Mindshape screen produces a clinical diagnosis. Every screen explicitly says this. A positive screen suggests that a clinician-administered evaluation would be informative; it doesn't replace one.
  • Cite the original instrument every time. Each screen page lists the authors, year, and publication of record. This page is the master list.
  • Be transparent about license status. If we use a freely-licensed instrument, we say so. If we use an educational adaptation of a copyrighted instrument, we say so. If we have a known license-risk item on the roadmap, we publish that risk note here.
  • No affiliate routing on clinical screens. We don't take referral fees from therapy directories, mental-health apps, or telehealth platforms for surfacing them on these pages. The financial conflict is incompatible with the trust required to handle mental-health content responsibly.
  • Crisis-relevant content stays free. Hotlines, next-step resources, and find-support lists are never paywalled and never gated behind sign-up.

Full instrument list (35 screens)

Click any row to visit the screen, which carries the same citation in-context.

Trauma / PTSD Test

Free public-use

PCL-5 — PTSD Checklist for DSM-5

Weathers, F. W., Litz, B. T., Keane, T. M., Palmieri, P. A., Marx, B. P., & Schnurr, P. P. (2013). National Center for PTSD, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Uses the published PCL-5 self-report items distributed across the four DSM-5 PTSD symptom clusters (intrusion, avoidance, negative cognitions/mood, arousal/reactivity). Educational adaptation — not a substitute for clinician-administered assessment.

Adaptation v1.1 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /trauma-test

Depression Screen

Free public-use

PHQ-9 — Patient Health Questionnaire-9

Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001). Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606–613 (PHQ-9 validity paper); JAMA, 282(18), 1737–1744 (Spitzer, Kroenke & Williams, 1999 — original PRIME-MD PHQ)..

Uses the standard published 9-item PHQ-9 with verbatim wordings, 'over the last 2 weeks' framing, and the standard 0–3 frequency scoring (sum range 0–27). Item 10 (functional impact) is displayed separately, not summed. The PHQ-9 was released by Pfizer without restriction — free for clinical, research, and educational use with attribution. Item 9 (suicidal ideation) triggers immediate crisis-resource surfacing regardless of total score, per standard clinical-safety practice.

Adaptation v1.0 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /depression-test

Anxiety Test

Free for clinical/educational

GAD-7 — Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale

Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., & Löwe, B. (2006). Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 1092–1097.

Uses the 7-item GAD-7 self-report scale with the original 'over the last 2 weeks' framing and standard 0–3 frequency scoring (sum range 0–21). Free for public, clinical, and educational use.

Adaptation v1.1 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /anxiety-test

Autism Spectrum Test

Free for clinical/educational

AQ-10 — Autism Spectrum Quotient — 10-item version

Allison, C., Auyeung, B., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2012). Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 51(2), 202–212.

Educational adaptation based on the AQ-10 (Adult) framework — Mindshape paraphrases items rather than reproducing the published wordings. Original AQ-10 © Autism Research Centre, University of Cambridge; free for research and clinical use. Screening only — not diagnostic.

Adaptation v1.1 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /autism-test

Burnout Test

Free public-use

CBI — Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (2005 standard form)

Kristensen, T. S., Borritz, M., Villadsen, E., & Christensen, K. B. (2005). Work & Stress, 19(3), 192–207 — National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Denmark.

Uses the full 19-item CBI across all three subscales: Personal Burnout (6 items), Work-Related Burnout (7 items, with the standard reverse-scored leisure-energy item), Client-Related Burnout (6 items, gated by an up-front question per the CBI's published design). Scoring follows the published method: each item maps to a 0–100 value (0/25/50/75/100), each subscale is the mean of its items. Cronbach's α 0.85–0.87 reported across subscales in the original multinational validation.

Adaptation vCBI 2005 standard form (Mindshape v2.0) · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /burnout-test

Adult ADHD Test

Free public-use

ASRS-v1.1 — Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale, World Health Organization

Kessler, R. C., Adler, L., Ames, M., Demler, O., Faraone, S., Hiripi, E., Howes, M. J., Jin, R., Secnik, K., Spencer, T., Ustun, T. B., & Walters, E. E. (2005). Psychological Medicine, 35(2), 245–256 — developed in collaboration with the WHO and Harvard Medical School.

Uses the ASRS-v1.1 framework with the 6-item screener as the primary signal and the full 18-item structure covering DSM inattention + hyperactivity/impulsivity symptom clusters. Free public-use screening instrument — not diagnostic.

Adaptation v1.1 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /adhd-test

Bipolar Spectrum Test

Free for clinical/educational

MDQ — Mood Disorder Questionnaire

Hirschfeld, R. M. A., Williams, J. B. W., Spitzer, R. L., Calabrese, J. R., Flynn, L., Keck, P. E., Lewis, L., McElroy, S. L., Post, R. M., Rapport, D. J., Russell, J. M., Sachs, G. S., & Zajecka, J. (2000). American Journal of Psychiatry, 157(11), 1873–1875.

Uses the MDQ structure — 13 hypomanic/manic symptom items plus the 'co-occurrence' and 'functional impairment' qualifiers required for a positive screen. Screening only — not diagnostic of Bipolar I, II, or related disorders.

Adaptation v1.1 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /bipolar-test

OCD Screening Test

Free for non-commercial research

OCI-R — Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory — Revised

Foa, E. B., Huppert, J. D., Leiberg, S., Langner, R., Kichic, R., Hajcak, G., & Salkovskis, P. M. (2002). Psychological Assessment, 14(4), 485–496.

Educational adaptation of the OCI-R 18-item structure across washing, checking, ordering, obsessing, hoarding, and neutralizing subscales. Screening only — full Y-BOCS clinician-administered interview is the diagnostic standard.

Adaptation v1.1 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /ocd-test

Eating Disorder Screening

⚠️ Commercially licensed (educational adaptation)

EAT-26 + SCOFF — Eating Attitudes Test (26-item) plus SCOFF behavioural items

Garner, D. M., Olmsted, M. P., Bohr, Y., & Garfinkel, P. E.; Morgan, J. F., Reid, F., & Lacey, J. H. (1982). Psychological Medicine, 12(4), 871–878 (EAT-26); BMJ, 319(7223), 1467–1468 (SCOFF, 1999).

Two-phase screen combining EAT-26 attitudinal items with SCOFF-style behavioural questions. The EAT-26 is © Eating Attitudes LLC — free for many educational and clinical uses with citation, while commercial web platforms require a licensing agreement; SCOFF is free public-use (BMJ, 1999). Screening only — not diagnostic.

Adaptation v1.2 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /eating-disorder-test

Adverse Childhood Experiences Test

Public domain

ACE — Adverse Childhood Experiences Questionnaire

Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., Koss, M. P., & Marks, J. S. (1998). American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258 (the original ACE Study).

Uses the original 10 ACE binary items unmodified. Public domain. The ACE score (0–10) is a research-validated index of cumulative childhood adversity, not a measure of present-day psychopathology.

Adaptation v1.0 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /ace-score-test

Complex PTSD Test

Free public-use

ITQ — International Trauma Questionnaire

Cloitre, M., Shevlin, M., Brewin, C. R., Bisson, J. I., Roberts, N. P., Maercker, A., Karatzias, T., & Hyland, P. (2018). Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 138(6), 536–546.

Uses the ITQ framework covering both ICD-11 PTSD and Disturbances in Self-Organisation (DSO: affective dysregulation, negative self-concept, disturbances in relationships) clusters used to differentiate Complex PTSD from PTSD. Screening only.

Adaptation v1.1 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /cptsd-test

Childhood Trauma Test

⚠️ Commercially licensed (educational adaptation)

CTQ-SF — Childhood Trauma Questionnaire — Short Form

Bernstein, D. P., Stein, J. A., Newcomb, M. D., Walker, E., Pogge, D., Ahluvalia, T., Stokes, J., Handelsman, L., Medrano, M., Desmond, D., & Zule, W. (2003). Child Abuse & Neglect, 27(2), 169–190.

Educational adaptation across the five CTQ subscales (emotional, physical, sexual abuse; emotional and physical neglect). The published CTQ-SF is licensed by Pearson/NCS — Mindshape uses a paraphrased educational version with original scoring structure. Screening only.

Adaptation v1.1 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /childhood-trauma-test

Dark Triad Personality Test

Free for non-commercial research

SD3 — Short Dark Triad

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Assessment, 21(1), 28–41 — building on Paulhus & Williams (2002), Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563.

Uses the SD3 27-item structure covering Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and Psychopathy subscales. Self-report research instrument — informative for self-reflection, never appropriate for third-party labelling or clinical diagnosis.

Adaptation v1.1 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /dark-triad-test

Impostor Syndrome Test

⚠️ Commercially licensed (educational adaptation)

CIPS — Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale

Clance, P. R. (1985). The Impostor Phenomenon: Overcoming the Fear that Haunts Your Success (Peachtree Publishers).

Based on the 20-item CIPS structure with the standard 5-point Likert scoring (range 20–100). The CIPS is © Pauline Rose Clance (1985) and reproduction requires the author's permission. Most widely-used impostor phenomenon measure. Self-reflection instrument — impostor phenomenon is not a DSM disorder.

Adaptation v1.0 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /imposter-syndrome-test

Empath / High-Sensitivity Test

Free for non-commercial research

IRI + HSP-derived — Interpersonal Reactivity Index plus Highly Sensitive Person framework

Davis, M. H. (IRI); Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (HSP) (1980). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126 (Davis IRI); Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 345–368 (Aron & Aron, 1997).

Educational adaptation combining empathic concern + perspective taking (IRI dimensions) with sensory processing sensitivity (HSP). 'Empath' is not a clinical category — this is a self-understanding instrument, not a diagnostic one.

Adaptation v1.0 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /empath-test

Highly Sensitive Person Test (HSP Test)

Free public-use

DOES-structured original items — Mindshape HSP self-check organised around Aron's four features of sensory processing sensitivity (DOES)

Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (construct and HSP Scale); items written by Mindshape (1997). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 345–368 (Aron & Aron, 1997); Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(3), 262–282 (Aron, Aron & Jagiellowicz, 2012).

20 original plain-language items, 5 per DOES feature, 4 reverse-scored. These are NOT the 27-item Highly Sensitive Person Scale or any translation of it. Low / medium / high bands are Mindshape cut-offs and have not been normed. High sensitivity is a temperament trait, not a diagnosis.

Adaptation v1.0 · last reviewed 2026-10-13 · slug /hsp-test

DISC Personality Test

Free public-use

DISC-model original forced-choice items — Mindshape DISC style self-check built on Marston's four-style model (Dominance, Influence, Steadiness, Conscientiousness)

Marston, W. M. (model); items written by Mindshape (1928). Emotions of Normal People (Marston, 1928).

20 original forced-choice questions, one answer per style. These are NOT items from DiSC Classic, Everything DiSC or any other commercial DISC product (DiSC is a registered trademark of John Wiley & Sons). Scores are the share of the user's own choices and have not been normed. DISC describes working style; it is not a clinical or hiring tool.

Adaptation v1.0 · last reviewed 2026-10-16 · slug /disc-personality-test

Four Temperaments Test

Free public-use

Two-scale original items (extraversion, emotional reactivity) — Mindshape four-temperament self-check: the classical temperaments placed on Eysenck's extraversion and emotional stability dimensions

Eysenck, H. J. (dimensions); items written by Mindshape (1947). Dimensions of Personality (Eysenck, 1947); quadrant-to-temperament mapping as shown in OpenStax Psychology 2e, section 11.7 Trait Theorists.

24 original plain-language items, 12 per scale, 6 of each reverse-scored, so acquiescence returns 'Balanced'. NOT items from the EPQ, EPQ-R, EPI or any other published scale. The 45/55 cut-offs are Mindshape's own and the test has not been normed. Emotional reactivity here means intensity of reaction, not a mental health condition.

Adaptation v1.0 · last reviewed 2026-10-16 · slug /temperament-test

Introvert / Extravert Spectrum Test

Free for non-commercial research

EPQ-derived — Eysenck Personality Questionnaire tradition + Big Five Extraversion

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G.; Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1975). Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Hodder & Stoughton, 1975); NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992).

Educational adaptation locating respondents on the introversion–extraversion spectrum using items derived from the Eysenck tradition and Big Five Extraversion facet structure. Self-reflection instrument.

Adaptation v1.0 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /introvert-test

Emotional Intelligence Test

Free for non-commercial research

EQ-i-derived — Educational adaptation of the EQ-i model + ability EI literature

Bar-On, R.; Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (1997). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (Multi-Health Systems, 1997); MSCEIT (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, 2002).

Educational adaptation covering Goleman's four emotional-intelligence domains — self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management — with 5 items each (20 in total). The full Bar-On EQ-i and MSCEIT are commercially licensed proprietary instruments — Mindshape's version is for self-reflection, not assessment.

Adaptation v1.0 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /emotional-intelligence-test

Borderline Personality Disorder Screening

Educational adaptation of DSM-5 criteria

DSM-5 BPD criteria (educational adaptation) — Borderline Personality Disorder DSM-5 criteria — educational adaptation

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5).

Educational adaptation of the 9 DSM-5 criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder. Not a substitute for the validated SCID-5-PD or PAI-BOR diagnostic interviews. A positive screen indicates that a clinician-administered assessment would be informative — it is not a diagnosis.

Adaptation v1.1 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /borderline-personality-disorder-test

Antisocial Personality Disorder Screening

Educational adaptation of DSM-5 criteria

DSM-5 ASPD criteria (educational adaptation) — Antisocial Personality Disorder DSM-5 criteria — educational adaptation

American Psychiatric Association (2013). DSM-5.

Educational adaptation of the DSM-5 criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder (Cluster B). Not diagnostic — formal assessment requires a clinician, evidence of conduct-disorder symptoms before age 15, and rule-out of other conditions per DSM-5 Criterion C.

Adaptation v1.1 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /antisocial-personality-disorder-test

Avoidant Personality Disorder Screening

Educational adaptation of DSM-5 criteria

DSM-5 AvPD criteria (educational adaptation) — Avoidant Personality Disorder DSM-5 criteria — educational adaptation

American Psychiatric Association (2013). DSM-5.

Educational adaptation of the 7 DSM-5 criteria for Avoidant Personality Disorder (Cluster C). The clinical distinction between AvPD and social anxiety disorder requires evaluation by a trained clinician.

Adaptation v1.1 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /avoidant-personality-disorder-test

Narcissistic Personality Screening

Educational adaptation of DSM-5 criteria

DSM-5 NPD criteria + NPI-derived — Narcissistic Personality Disorder DSM-5 criteria with Narcissistic Personality Inventory framing

American Psychiatric Association; Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (NPI-40) (2013). DSM-5; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 890–902 (NPI, 1988).

Educational adaptation across DSM-5 NPD criteria and the Raskin & Terry NPI-derived grandiosity/exhibitionism dimensions. Self-screening instrument — subclinical narcissistic traits are common in the general population and not in themselves pathological.

Adaptation v1.1 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /narcissistic-personality-test

Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder Screening

Educational adaptation of DSM-5 criteria

DSM-5 OCPD criteria (educational adaptation) — Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder DSM-5 criteria — educational adaptation

American Psychiatric Association (2013). DSM-5.

Educational adaptation of the 8 DSM-5 criteria for OCPD (Cluster C). OCPD is distinct from OCD — OCPD is ego-syntonic (perfectionism feels right), OCD involves ego-dystonic intrusive obsessions. A diagnosis requires a clinician familiar with the distinction.

Adaptation v1.1 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /obsessive-compulsive-personality-disorder-test

Schizoid Personality Disorder Screening

Educational adaptation of DSM-5 criteria

DSM-5 SchizoidPD criteria (educational adaptation) — Schizoid Personality Disorder DSM-5 criteria — educational adaptation

American Psychiatric Association (2013). DSM-5.

Educational adaptation of the 7 DSM-5 criteria for Schizoid Personality Disorder (Cluster A). Schizoid Personality Disorder is distinct from autism, social anxiety, and avoidant personality disorder; clinician differentiation is required.

Adaptation v1.1 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /schizoid-personality-disorder-test

Schizotypal Personality Disorder Screening

Educational adaptation of DSM-5 criteria

DSM-5 SchizotypalPD criteria (educational adaptation) — Schizotypal Personality Disorder DSM-5 criteria — educational adaptation

American Psychiatric Association (2013). DSM-5.

Educational adaptation of the 9 DSM-5 criteria for Schizotypal Personality Disorder (Cluster A). The schizotypal–schizophrenia spectrum relationship requires careful clinical differentiation; this is a screening prompt only.

Adaptation v1.1 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /schizotypal-personality-disorder-test

Histrionic Personality Disorder Screening

Educational adaptation of DSM-5 criteria

DSM-5 HistrionicPD criteria (educational adaptation) — Histrionic Personality Disorder DSM-5 criteria — educational adaptation

American Psychiatric Association (2013). DSM-5.

Educational adaptation of the 8 DSM-5 criteria for Histrionic Personality Disorder (Cluster B). Cultural and gender expectations significantly affect HPD diagnosis; clinical interpretation should be culturally informed.

Adaptation v1.1 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /histrionic-personality-disorder-test

Paranoid Personality Disorder Screening

Educational adaptation of DSM-5 criteria

DSM-5 PPD criteria (educational adaptation) — Paranoid Personality Disorder DSM-5 criteria — educational adaptation

American Psychiatric Association (2013). DSM-5.

Educational adaptation of the 7 DSM-5 criteria for Paranoid Personality Disorder (Cluster A). PPD must be differentiated from delusional disorder, psychotic disorders, and trauma-related vigilance — diagnosis requires clinical assessment.

Adaptation v1.1 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /paranoid-personality-disorder-test

Dependent Personality Disorder Screening

Educational adaptation of DSM-5 criteria

DSM-5 DepPD criteria (educational adaptation) — Dependent Personality Disorder DSM-5 criteria — educational adaptation

American Psychiatric Association (2013). DSM-5.

Educational adaptation of the 8 DSM-5 criteria for Dependent Personality Disorder (Cluster C). Cultural norms around interdependence vary significantly and affect interpretation; clinical context matters.

Adaptation v1.1 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /dependent-personality-disorder-test

Personality Disorder Screening (10-type overview)

Educational adaptation of DSM-5 criteria

DSM-5 Personality Disorders chapter (educational overview) — DSM-5 Section II Personality Disorders chapter — educational adaptation

American Psychiatric Association (2013). DSM-5.

Educational overview screen across the 10 DSM-5 personality disorders organized into Clusters A (odd/eccentric), B (dramatic/erratic), and C (anxious/fearful). Indicates which deeper screens may be informative — never a substitute for the SCID-5-PD or clinician interview.

Adaptation v1.1 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /personality-disorder-test

Codependency Test

Free for non-commercial research

Educational adaptation (Whitfield / Beattie framework) — Codependency assessment drawing on Whitfield and Beattie literature

Whitfield, C. L.; Beattie, M. (1991). Co-Dependence: Healing the Human Condition (Whitfield, 1991); Codependent No More (Beattie, 1986).

Educational adaptation — 'codependency' is a clinical-adjacent concept, not a DSM disorder. Items cover compulsive caretaking, identity diffusion, boundary blurring, and external locus of control. Self-reflection instrument.

Adaptation v1.0 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /codependency-test

Karpman Drama Triangle Assessment

Public domain

Karpman Drama Triangle (conceptual model) — Karpman's Drama Triangle — Transactional Analysis framework

Karpman, S. (1968). Transactional Analysis Bulletin, 7(26), 39–43.

Educational instrument identifying default roles in unhealthy interpersonal dynamics (Victim, Rescuer, Persecutor) based on the original Karpman conceptual model. Self-reflection tool, not a clinical measure.

Adaptation v1.0 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /karpman-drama-triangle

Toxic Relationship Quiz

Free for clinical/educational

Educational adaptation (Gottman + IPV literature) — Educational adaptation drawing on Gottman's Four Horsemen + intimate-partner-violence screening principles

Gottman, J. M. (1999). The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work (Crown, 1999); Gottman Institute relationship research.

Self-reflection screen for corrosive relationship patterns — criticism, contempt, defensiveness, stonewalling, coercion. Not an intimate-partner-violence screening tool; if you are in physical danger see the crisis resources linked on the page.

Adaptation v1.0 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /toxic-relationship-quiz

BPD vs Complex PTSD — Differential Screen

Educational adaptation of DSM-5 criteria

DSM-5 BPD criteria + ITQ (combined) — Educational adaptation combining DSM-5 Borderline Personality Disorder criteria with the International Trauma Questionnaire (CPTSD subscale)

American Psychiatric Association; Cloitre, M., Shevlin, M., Brewin, C. R., Bisson, J. I., Roberts, N. P., Maercker, A., Karatzias, T., & Hyland, P. (2018). DSM-5 (APA, 2013); Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 138(6), 536–546 (ITQ).

Educational differential screen — BPD and Complex PTSD share substantial symptom overlap (emotional dysregulation, relational instability, negative self-concept) but have different aetiological and treatment implications. Differential diagnosis requires a clinician.

Adaptation v1.0 · last reviewed 2026-05-23 · slug /bpd-vs-cptsd

What we don't do

  • Provide clinical diagnoses. No screen on this site is diagnostic.
  • Route clinical-screen users to commercial therapy directories for affiliate revenue.
  • Sell or share individual screen responses to advertisers, marketers, or third parties.
  • Claim our adaptations are equivalent to clinician-administered validated assessments.
  • Use 'AI therapist' framing or any language implying our content can replace professional care.

Adaptation versioning policy

We track an adaptation version per screen. The version increments when any of the following change: question wording, scoring algorithm, severity-band cutoffs, recommended next-step framing, or crisis-resource integration. Each version's last-reviewed date is the date the named clinical advisor (when active) signed off on the version; until the advisor is active, the date reflects internal content review.

We deliberately do not bump the version for cosmetic page changes, internal-link updates, or copy-edits to the screen's educational framing. Those changes are logged in version control but don't reset the clinical-review clock.

Personality-disorder self-checks

How the paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, histrionic, dependent and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder self-checks are built, and where to read further. The older view that personality disorders are untreatable has been substantially revised: there are psychotherapies with published evidence across the personality disorders, usually with longer timelines (often years) than for other conditions. How strong that evidence is varies a great deal between disorders — it is strongest for borderline personality disorder and thinnest for some Cluster A disorders and antisocial personality disorder.

Methodology & sources

Based on
DSM-5-TR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 5th edition, Text Revision) — the official US psychiatric diagnostic manual. Mindshape summarises each criterion in plain language rather than reproducing the manual's text.
Developed by
American Psychiatric Association DSM-5 working groups. The personality disorders section has been substantially refined across editions (DSM-III in 1980, DSM-IV in 1994, DSM-5 in 2013, DSM-5-TR in 2022).
Validated in
The DSM-5 personality disorder criteria are the official US clinical diagnostic standard. Cross-cultural validation across decades.
Our adaptation
Each self-check is a short self-report screen mapped to that disorder's DSM-5 criteria. Items are adapted for online self-reflection; scoring bands are designed for first-look interpretation rather than formal clinical diagnosis. Formal assessment uses structured clinical interviews such as the SCID-5-PD.

Personality disorders: further reading

Curated starting points if you want to go deeper than this page.

Book

Cognitive Therapy of Personality Disorders

Aaron Beck et al.

The foundational CBT-for-personality-disorders text. The standard clinical reference.

Book

Schema Therapy

Jeffrey Young et al.

Young's schema therapy framework — particularly well-suited to personality disorder work.

Website

DSM-5-TR Personality Disorders Section↗

The official DSM-5-TR criteria reference. Authoritative source for diagnostic criteria.

Book

Personality Disorders: Toward the DSM-V

Various

Academic-level overview of contemporary PD research. For those wanting deep understanding.

Website

Psychology Today PD therapist directory↗

Searchable directory of clinicians who explicitly work with personality disorders.

Enneagram and wing pages

How the Enneagram type and wing profiles are sourced, and where to read further.

Methodology & sources

Based on
The Riso-Hudson Enneagram framework, the most widely adopted modern Enneagram system. Wing theory specifically derives from the original Jungian and Naranjo Enneagram traditions.
Developed by
Wing theory developed by Claudio Naranjo (1970s) and formalised by Don Riso and Russ Hudson (1980s-2000s) through the Enneagram Institute.
Validated in
The Enneagram is a typology framework rather than a clinical instrument — wing theory is descriptive rather than psychometrically validated. Clinical utility is in self-knowledge and developmental work.
Our adaptation
Wing profile synthesising across major Enneagram traditions. Wing descriptions, vs-other-wing comparisons, careers, and matches drawn from contemporary Enneagram coaching literature.

Enneagram: further reading

Curated starting points if you want to go deeper than this page.

Book

The Wisdom of the Enneagram

Don Richard Riso & Russ Hudson

The most comprehensive single-volume Enneagram text. Standard reference for serious students of the framework.

Book

Personality Types

Don Richard Riso & Russ Hudson

The original deep-dive into the 9 types with the 'levels of development' framework.

Website

The Enneagram Institute↗

The official Riso-Hudson Enneagram Institute. Authoritative descriptions, certified teacher directory, online tests.

Book

Enneagram in the Narrative Tradition

Helen Palmer

Helen Palmer's contemplative-tradition framing — different emphasis from Riso-Hudson, equally valuable.

Book

Beatrice Chestnut — 27 Subtypes

Beatrice Chestnut

For those who want to go beyond 9 types and wings into the 27 subtype framework (each type × 3 instinctual variants).

Cognitive-function pages

How the eight cognitive-function profiles are sourced, and where to read further.

Methodology & sources

Based on
Carl Jung's 1921 work 'Psychological Types' (where the 8 cognitive functions were first proposed), Isabel Briggs Myers's modernisation into the 16-type MBTI framework, and the contemporary cognitive-function tradition (Lenore Thomson, Personality Hacker, Objective Personality, John Beebe).
Developed by
C.G. Jung (1921) introduced the 8 functions. Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers translated them into the modern 16-type framework (1940s-1960s). The cognitive-function approach to type — emphasising the 4-function stack rather than just the 4-letter code — has been the focus of MBTI work since the 1990s.
Validated in
The MBTI itself has mixed psychometric support; the cognitive-function tradition is closer to a typological framework than a psychometric instrument. Its value is descriptive and developmental rather than predictive.
Our adaptation
Each Mindshape function profile synthesises across the major cognitive-function teachers, with type positions grounded in the standard Myers-Briggs stacking and growth direction drawn from the contemporary developmental literature.

Cognitive functions: further reading

Curated starting points if you want to go deeper than this page.

Book

Psychological Types

C.G. Jung (1921)

The foundational text. Dense, original, and the source from which all subsequent cognitive-function work derives.

Book

Gifts Differing

Isabel Briggs Myers

The book that translated Jung's typology into the modern 16-type framework. Still the most readable introduction.

Book

Personality Types

Lenore Thomson

The deepest single-volume treatment of cognitive functions in the modern MBTI tradition. Demanding but rewarding.

Website

Personality Hacker↗

Antonia Dodge and Joel Mark Witt's framework — 'car model' of the four functions per type — is one of the most-cited modern teaching frameworks.

Website

Objective Personality (Dave & Shannon Powers)↗

Highly technical extension of cognitive-function theory. Controversial but rigorous.

Website

CelebrityTypes / Type in Mind↗

The most extensive online archive of cognitive-function descriptions and type analyses.

For clinicians, researchers & regulators

If you have questions about a specific instrument, a license concern, or you'd like to engage Mindshape as a licensed clinical advisor, please reach out via the contact page.

We respond to license-holder concerns within 48 hours and act on legitimate cease-and-desist requests promptly.

About Mindshape →

Who we are, what we won't do, and how we run the platform.

All tests →

Browse every personality and screening test on Mindshape.