Neeley

Rachel Neeley                                                                                                                    
Prof. Guenzel                                                                                                                              
ENC 1102
4/14
 
Mental Health Strategies: Determining the Most Effective Diagnostic Methods

 Introduction

     The widespread motivation to discover more about ourselves and how to properly take care of

our own mental well-being has been of growing importance for many over the past few decades.

Due to incredible advancements in technology, and thus a realization of the importance mental

health can hold in everyday life, the general public is almost constantly being introduced to new

information regarding the abilities they possess, what they may or may not be doing wrong, and

how to perform better in many different aspects. Various discoveries made over the past century

have introduced us to new and often overwhelming mental diagnoses, the symptoms of which

were often brushed off or trivialized, deemed negative or childish behavior by parents of the past

generations’ youth. This was not limited to children. Even adults who may have dealt with a

mental disorder were belittled and labeled irresponsible or lazy. Although many are beginning to

grasp the importance of understanding concepts such as developmental and abnormal

psychology, many continue to ignore advice and data gathered from a multitude of studies and

scientific findings, such as those found in MRI scans or research studies performed by

professional psychologists. If the parents of today, and the current youth relatively soon to be

parents themselves, do not understand how to treat those experiencing symptoms of mental

disorders, the many roles mental well-being can play in various aspects of life, and how to

not ignore symptoms but seek proper help and sympathy when it comes to treating them, we can

ensure that many mistakes made in the past will not be nearly as likely to be made again.
 Neeley
2

      My research paper seeks to analyze the determining factors of mental illness from different

perspectives regarding the research question I’ve chosen: At the societal peak of mental health

concern, what are the most effective diagnostic methods in determining a legitimate claim to a

mental illness? It is apparent that we should concern ourselves with reducing the negative stigma

surrounding the topic by creating more effective models for explaining mental illness to the

public as well as designing clinical treatment options that help raise an individual’s ability to

combat the dysfunction in their brain, whether or not a mental illness is medically diagnosed or

simply perceived by an individual who may experience episodes of anxiety or depression. While,

as I mentioned, this perspective is currently commonplace among millennials and generation Z,

the negative view of those with mental illnesses is just as strong among previous generations as

well as some members of the age of social media. With negative stigmas often attached to mental

illness, many are inclined to feel discouraged from going to see a psychiatrist (or any medical

professional) to seek a proper diagnosis which could ultimately lead to an effective treatment.

Sophie Bethune of the American Psychological Association (APA) mentions that members of

Generation Z are “significantly more likely (27 percent) than other generations, including

millennials (15 percent) and Gen Xers (13 percent), to report their mental health as fair or poor”

(Bethune). However, as the number of both claims to a mental illness and overall diagnoses have

skyrocketed over the recent decades, we must understand all perspectives regarding the

legitimacy of the impact of mental health concerns on one’s overall wellbeing, and from there

determine the most appropriate methods for diagnosing mental illnesses on a widespread basis.

Traditional View on Mental Illness

 Neeley
3

     Many of the major advancements in our general understanding of psychology have been made

roughly in the past one-hundred years. These findings were generally not discovered simply or

even painlessly. There was no code of ethics to follow during studies and there was not an

abundance of previous scientific research to explain concepts such as anxiety, depression, Post-

Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and many more mental illnesses that seem to be fairly

common among the general population today. To trace the evolution of how people with mental

health illnesses have been labelled and “dealt with” over the years, we can first look to the

perspective of developed societies of centuries ago, where we see that “while terrifying mental

health remedies can be traced back to prehistoric times, it’s the dawn of the asylum era in the

mid-1700s that marks a period of some of the most inhumane mental health treatments” (Fabian,

paragraph 2). Over the following two centuries, improvement in understanding mental illnesses

began to unveil slightly. However, due to a lack of technological development in this

department, leading to continued misunderstandings of those with mental disorders, this period

of time is marked by a vast lack of knowledge surrounding mental disorders, and more

specifically, brain function.

Modern View on Mental Illness

Of course, by today we do see mental illness in a somewhat different light. We have, at

least medically, come to understand that a mental condition or illness is not a disease of the

body, but a condition afflicting the mind. This was the most important revelation to come as a

result of the last century of psychological and psychiatric research, and we now have much more

appropriate options for treating those with mental illnesses. However, much of this knowledge is

limited to the medical field, and there is still a widespread stigma among much of the world

population that mental illness is either a) a congenital defect that relegates an individual to a
 Neeley
4

lower class, or b) that mental illness should not be compensated for with accommodations, as it

is trivial and could be easily overcome with more hard work and responsibility. Much of this

stigma comes from the inadequate public explanatory models for mental illness, which still

associate mental illness with other medical illnesses like those relating to physical health. In this

way, society has not yet moved past the empirical perspective of mental illness and those that

deal with it, as our explanatory model “implies that mental illness has a biological basis just like

other medical illnesses and should be treated in the public’s eye in a similar manner” (Malla,

Joober, Garcia, paragraph 3).

Then there is the perspective that mental health issues such as ADHD (Attention Deficit

Hyperactivity Disorder), GAD (Generalized Anxiety Disorder), OCD (Obsessive Compulsive

Disorder), or Depression are legitimate concerns when properly diagnosed, but that it is too easy

to receive a diagnosis which waters down the overall idea that mental health genuinely carries

with it an inability to be a productive member of society. This is a somewhat understandable

perspective, as we are currently living in the time period with the most mental health diagnoses

ever. For example, Tim Newman, the Senior Editor for the Medical News Today, concluded that

“Americans reported substantially higher levels of depressive symptoms, particularly somatic

symptoms, in the 2000s–2010s compared to the 1980s–1990s” (Newman, paragraph 32). Now,

while this could just simply be the result of reported cases beginning to match actual cases due to

a new wave of understanding and acceptance of mental health among society, noted by the

movement across social media propped up by various celebrities and figures of importance, it

could also be said that, for example, “anxiety seen in poor mothers is caused by poverty itself,

not mental illness” (Abrams, paragraph 7). This was actually the conclusion of Judith Baer,

Ph.D., who conducted a statistical analysis that “looked specifically at the relationship between
 Neeley
5

poverty and diagnosis” (Abrams, paragraph 6). In this way, it is easier to give credence to the

perspective that mental health is not as important as the worst of the instances it appears. That

perspective is also bolstered by the fact that “The disorder (anxiety) is especially common and

impairing in high-income countries despite a negative association between GAD and

socioeconomic status within countries” (Newman, paragraph 26). In this way, “where there is

genuine struggle, higher levels of anxiety might rightly be considered justifiable and therefore

not a diagnosable condition” (Newman, paragraph 24). Even more so, older generations that

accept this statement would have a hard time accepting research results such as that of the

reportedly substantially higher levels of depressive symptoms in light of research that

“Millennials were revealed to still be the most anxious generation” (Newman, paragraph 18),

because if the generation that champions the movement to combat mental health is the same

generation who claims to have it in the highest proportion, it leads to believe that the generation

is dealing with “genuine struggle”, but their feelings in relation to the struggles they have should

not amount to a diagnosis of anxiety.

This perspective, however, ignores the reality of the situation. The diagnosable standard

for a mental health disorder should not restrict access to supportive care and accommodation on

the basis of life already being too difficult to deal with. If anything, “genuine struggle” is all the

more reason to offer mental health counseling or therapy, even if the feelings of anxiety or

depression are solely perceived by the individual.

Results

     If results are not guaranteed in some fashion, such as acceptance of feelings that may be being

overanalyzed when they are not diagnosable, there will always be a mental health “crisis” of
 Neeley
6

sorts in the country. This holds true with the notion that “our dialogue should incorporate the

general complexity of human thinking, behavior, memories and the idea of self and

consciousness, including knowledge emerging from sophisticated biogenetic and social science

research while attending to the specific complexities that each of us as human beings carry as

part of our life stories” (Malla, Joober, Garcia, paragraph 12). In accordance with this idea, it is

made clear that, “if patients and families are allowed to articulate their attributional models,

given credit for their ‘experiential knowledge’ and encouraged to enter into a dialogue with the

treating clinician, it is more likely there will be some consensus on acceptance of recommended

treatment” ((Malla, Joober, Garcia). Since it is clear that we should treat mental illness as a

legitimate hindrance to one’s ability to prosper in day to day life and achieve their aspirations,

yet it is also clear that many feelings associated with mental health concerns may not add up to a

full-blown mental illness diagnosis, we must evaluate the criteria by which mental illness is

perceived. There are generally three perspectives defining methods by which one will come to

believe that they are mentally ill, or diagnostic methods, and since the perspectives on the

relevance of mental health in daily life fall in line with those methods, analyzing them can help

us come to a conclusion regarding which are most effective in counteracting the effects of mental

illness and reducing the stigma surrounding it.

Self-Diagnosis

      The first method I will be discussing is self-diagnosis, which arises from analysis of certain

tendencies or emotions that have a negative impact on one’s mental standing, whether this is an
 Neeley
7

over-analyzation of normal feelings or a realization that one may be facing an actual chemical

imbalance in their brain. This method, though it can help raise awareness of specific disorders,

can potentially be rather dangerous and possibly partially attributable to the large increase in

diagnoses, especially in youth. Dr. Srini Pillay, Physician and part-time Professor at Harvard

Medical School, mentions how self diagnosing can be “very dangerous, as people who assume

that they can surmise what is going on with themselves may miss the nuances of diagnosis

(Pillay)”. For example, it is currently not uncommon for teenagers to mention having anxiety,

obsessive compulsive disorder, depression, etc. while not having been diagnosed. While self-

diagnoses can potentially be a way for those on social media to feel they are not alone in

experiencing symptoms of a mental disorder, today’s youth may benefit from being aware that

such claims, if made before consulting a primary physician or psychiatrist, can be dangerous to

believe and for others to see. With regard to the interconnected nature of society in the age of

technology and social media, this is because it may trivialize the experiences of those who have

been diagnosed by a psychiatrist and deal with more severe episodes of anxiety, depression, or

symptoms difficult to manage. With regard to the extremely personal nature of mental health,

self-diagnosis is an issue because “many illnesses share many of the same symptoms”

(Tartakovsky), and so it can oftentimes be counterintuitive to self-diagnose, in the event that one

ends up convincing themselves that they have a certain mental disorder, when they in fact have

one that would require a vastly different form of treatment.

Psychiatric Evaluation

     The second method by which it is understood that one has a mental illness is that of

psychiatric evaluation. When a person is feeling unwell mentally, they either internalize their
 Neeley
8

negative feelings or visit their general practitioner, who may then recommend them to a

psychiatrist. A psychiatric evaluation involves testing such as verbal communication or

questionnaires such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, or MMPI, a

psychometric testing method which “assesses personality traits and psychopathology”

(Framingham). Such tests, which have become more specifically geared toward determining

differences between commonly diagnosed disorders, have been of great help to psychiatrists and

to those diagnosed because a proper assessment allows for the finding of the best available

treatment, such as prescription medication, cognitive therapy, or multiple methods of treatment

depending on the patient’s personal experiences and needs. Psychiatric evaluation is the most

commonplace diagnostic method that is considered legitimate, however it is still based on

subjective intuition of the respective psychologist who would render a diagnosis. To be certain,

psychiatrists are extremely experienced, and their judgement should continue to be held as the

standard by which mental illnesses are diagnosed, but perhaps society could be more inclusive of

methods that would expand on a psychiatrist’s evaluation in order to provide a more objective

delineation of the differences in the brain that distinguish the chronic anguish and chemical

imbalances which define a mental illness from a normally functioning individual experiencing

acute episodes of mental turmoil. In 2014, data showed that “43.6 million adults (18 years and

older) who suffer from conditions such as depression, borderline personality disorder and bipolar

disorder” (Bradley University). Since these statistics only represent those over 18 years of age

that have been diagnosed by a professional, it is safe to assume that many children and those who

don’t have access to such medical help are not being accounted for. Considering the significant

percentage of Americans who could benefit from diagnosis and treatment today, it seems that the
 Neeley
9

option to be evaluated by a psychologist should be heavily considered by those suffering from

symptoms potentially linked to a mental disorder. 

Brain Scanning

     Beyond a psychiatric evaluation which would serve to determine whether or not a mental

illness is present on the basis of behavioral functions, “brain scans such as MRIs and EKGs

allow researchers and doctors to look for patterns. Abnormalities in regular patterns can point to

various disorders (American Health Imaging)”. Almost all frequently-diagnosed disorders affect

or are causes of effects of brain abnormalities that are visible through the aforementioned brain

scanning techniques. Though this technique has proven to show much success in helping doctors

determine specific mental deficits, a head MRI, which can cost up to $5000, can be quite

difficult for some to afford. In the field of psychology, brain scans have proven to not only be

extremely useful in diagnosing, but also when it comes to tracking a patient’s progress through

treatment, which for some, can be well worth the price. Stacy Lu of The American Psychological

Association (APA) mentions that “Examining patterns of brain connectivity helped researchers

predict how well people did with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for social anxiety disorder”

(Lu). This benefit enables objective tracking of the incline of mental health/recovery in patients

throughout their treatment. While this method isn’t stated as necessary in many diagnoses, it may

end up being of more use than we now think. 

Conclusion

     Of the three methods, only self-diagnosis and psychiatric evaluation are commonplace. Self-

diagnosis, while offering benefits in the form of reducing stigma by making generation Z and
 Neeley
10

millenials more willing to speak up about mental health concerns, seems to be overall more

dangerous than helpful as it can have a tendency to blur the line between purely symptomatic

exhibition of features associated with mental illnesses or disorders which may be rooted in socio-

economic concerns, which plays in favor of the arguments made by older generations that mental

health is not as relevant as hard work or responsibility. This is an issue as mental health certainly

is important to reconcile, especially for individuals with legitimate claims to a disorder.

Onwards, brain scans are typically exclusive to a) those that can afford them and b)

circumstances in which a physical condition of the brain must be evaluated in order to prevent

damage or even death. If brain scans were more widely used in conjunction with psychiatric

evaluation, which is already considered the baseline for determining whether or not a mental

illness is actually present, its objective nature would work to prove that there is a genuine

biological standing for the various accommodations that mentally ill people receive, such as

medication, extended testing and questionnaires, and in-depth one-on-one interviews with a

psychiatrist. If both of these accommodations are effectively implemented in such a way that

encourages patients to receive diagnoses based off of data acquired through brain scans and

thorough psychiatric evaluations, more accurate diagnoses are likely to be given. A reduction of

negative stigmatization toward those with mental deficits would also likely occur, as less cases

would be self-proclaimed. Because the price of scanning, e.g. head MRIs and EKG scanning, can

be unrealistic for certain patients, government subsidization could  do a significant amount in

heightening the availability, as the issue of mental health decline over recent years has become

an issue of much importance. Overall, after considering the three primary diagnostic methods

used to diagnose an individual “mentally ill”, my conclusion is that a combination of psychiatric

 Neeley
11

evaluation and brain scans would be the most appropriate, effective, and thorough method for

diagnosing mental illness and combating the negative stigma associated with such phenomena. 

References:

Abrams, Lindsay. “Is Anxiety Overdiagnosed?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 30 Oct. 
2012, www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/08/is-anxiety-overdiagnosed/260549/.

Bethune, S. (2019). Gen Z More Likely to Report Mental Health Concerns. Retrieved from
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01/gen-z

 “Can a Brain Scan Can Help Diagnose ADHD?” American Health Imaging, 19 Oct. 2018,
www.americanhealthimaging.com/brain-scan-help-diagnose-adhd/.
Fabian, Renee, et al. “The History of Inhumane Mental Health Treatments.” Talkspace, 28 Sept. 2018,
www.talkspace.com/blog/history-inhumane-mental-health-treatments/.
Framingham, Jane. “Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI).” Psych Central, 13
Oct. 2018, psychcentral.com/lib/minnesota-multiphasic-personality-inventory-mmpi/.

 Lu, Stacy. “Tailoring Treatment by Scanning the Brain.” Monitor on Psychology, American
Psychological Association, Sept. 2016, www.apa.org/monitor/2016/09/scanning-brain. 
Malla, A, Joober, R, & Garcia, G. (2015). Mental Illness is like any other medical illness. Journal of
Psychiatry and Neuroscience, 40(3), 147-150.
 “Mental Health in America.” Bradley University Online, 24 Sept. 2019,
onlinedegrees.bradley.edu/blog/mental-health-in-america/.  
Motjabai, R, Olfson, M & Han, B. (2016). National Trends in the Prevalence and Treatment of
Depression in Adolescents and Young Adults. PEDIATRICS, 138(6),

Newman, Tim. “Is Anxiety Increasing in the United States?” Medical News Today,
MediLexicon      International, 5 Sept. 2018, www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322877.
Pillay, Srini. “The Dangers of Self-Diagnosis.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 3 May
2010, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/debunking-myths-the-mind/201005/the-dangers-self-
diagnosis.
Rice, S. M., Telford, N. R., Rickwood, D. J., & Parker, A. G. (2017). Young men’s access to 
community-based mental health care: qualitative analysis of barriers and facilitators. Journal of 
Mental Health, 27(1), 59–65
Tartakovsky, Margarita. “The Many Conditions That Mimic Depression.” World of Psychology,
8 July 2018, psychcentral.com/blog/the-many-conditions-that-mimic-depression/.
Neeley
12