If you were to visit a doctor for a serious injury, and the extent of the treatment was analyzing why you had the accident, and reliving the play by play of your mistake, would you continue to pay substantial fees for their services for the next couple of years? Probably not, yet this is the accepted norm for mental health treatments.
Since Sigmund Freud discovered talk therapy and psychoanalysis in the late 1800’s, there has been little advancement in a modality for behavior change that works. One of the reasons for this is a means to measure whether one is making progress with a client. Neuroscientists and psychiatrists claim the processes of the human mind and the physiology of the brain is too complex to measure accurately.
Emotion drives behavior yet emotion is bypassed in favor of looking at the resulting behavior in the mental health industry. Normal cannot be defined by skipping the driver of what constitutes normal. The only explainable motivation for this is no one wants to fix a disorder because it is more profitable to drag it out or drug it. Better is not when a therapist or psychiatrist says you are better it is when you can see and feel you are better. This can only happen if you measure, track and improve emotion at every session.
Burris Connect: The Ultimate Mental Health EHR
After 26 Years of Data Collection We Are Finally at Step 1
Efficacy of empirical data in Functional Emotional Fitness™ (mental health) occurs when constants are measured and changed and the legitimacy of the data occurs when it is generated by the client. The constant in Functional Emotional Fitness™ (mental health) is the clients’ emotional state. Measuring, tacking and improving this constant at every session is what brings about the efficacy of an intervention.
Empirically sound and measurable outcomes in Emotional Health (mental health) are terms rarely used together because there are no standards of measurement as there are in Functional Emotional Fitness™. We established a measurable outcome protocol in 1990 and have refined it down to a 22 point three instrument checklist. This is how we know it is empirically sound because we have been collecting data for twenty-five years.
A 2008 study released from Rand called “Invisible Wounds of War” addressed the issue of PTSD, major depression and the rising suicide rate in the military. Burris Institute and its Functional Emotional Fitness™ process have been compliant with the recommendations of the Rand study for over a decade. An overview of how Burris Emotional Wellness and the SR™ process now exceed Rand recommendations can be found in the Evidence-Based section of the Burris Institute website.
Ask anyone to define normal and they will reference behavior. Normal cannot be determined via behavior but it can be determined via emotion, which is the driver for behavior. When making an observational subjective assessment as is done with children and ADHD one is bypassing the driver of the behavior or the root cause. The term observational subjective assessment in translation simple means one is guessing because there is a void of any meaningful data.