P ersonality assessment as a field emerged from an enduring awareness of and desire to understand the individual differences in how people think, feel, and behave. While early assessment efforts took an idiographic approach in the form of case histories and psychobiographies (Wiggins, 2003), the field of personality assessment has been influenced by historical events, different theoretical perspectives, and advances in statistics and technology, inspiring a range of methods and related measures (e.g., clinical interviewing, performancebased measures, self-and informant report, person-specific approaches) to assess individual differences. The definitions of personality disorder and personality pathology have also evolved over time. Most recently, the development of the Alternative DSM-5 Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (11th ed.; ICD-11; World Health Organization, 2019) has encouraged clinicians to view personality disorders dimensionally by assessing a patient's level of personality functioning (Severity of Impairment, AMPD Criterion A) and maladaptive trait domains (Style of Impairment, AMPD Criterion B). Although this conceptualization of personality disorder contrasts with more traditional categorical approaches, the assessment of these AMPD and ICD-11 diagnostic dimensions has relied on existing and familiar methods. By understanding the strengths and weaknesses of these methods, we can better understand how they can contribute to our understanding of these new models of personality disorder, help the clinician to select