Whenever there is questions about psychological disorders, I think that either a person actually has disorder (it's psychophysical) or they are deluding themself into believing they have a disorder (purely psychological). Regardless of the source, I've found this part of MN 2 to be most helpful. Here is my summary of it.
MN 2: Sabbāsava Sutta, All the Taints
What are the taints to be abandoned by seeing?
He understands what is fit for attention and what is unfit for attention. Since that is so, he does not attend to those things unfit for attention and he attends to those things fit for attention.
Things unfit for attention are those things that when given attention to, increase and give rise to the taints of sensual desire, being, and ignorance.
"There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person... doesn't discern what ideas are fit for attention, or what ideas are unfit for attention... This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'"
Things fit for attention are those things that, when given attention to, don't give rise to taints and abandon arisen taints (sense desire, being, and ignorance).
He attends wisely to the 4 Noble Truths and attains to stream entry.
So I would say that the kilesa is unwise attention and believing that in reality
a permanent self exists which can be ascribed attributes like a "disorder".
When this is, that is.
From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
When this isn't, that isn't.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.-SN 12.61Ex nihilo nihil fit.