Critically evaluate the diagnostic model of mental health, with specific reference to the concept of schizophrenia

Authors Avatar

Benjamin Iannotta                                                                                                                      20139208

Critically evaluate the diagnostic model of mental health, with specific reference to the concept of schizophrenia.

Fundamental to critically evaluating the diagnostic model of mental health, with specific reference to the concept of schizophrenia is the importance one must first place on its provenance.  This is central to any diagnostic model evaluation for inferring schizophrenia because the earlier structural approaches continue to corporate the basis for describing and diagnosing the disorder of today.  This essay will therefore firstly begin by briefly discussing Kraepelin, Bleuler, and Schneider’s work to the concept of schizophrenia then secondly argue how the implications of Kraepelin’s idea of ‘psychiatric classification’ has resulted in much controversy surrounding issues of diagnostic reliability and validity.

Emil Kraepelin (1856-1926) assumed that there was a discrete and discoverable number of psychiatric disorders. His idea’s of ‘psychiatric classification’ was published in a series of texts between 1896 and 1913 where assumed that mental illnesses fell into a small number of discoverable types which could be readily identified by studying symptoms on direct observation (Bentall, 2003).  Upon recognising that some symptoms could occur in more than one disorder, Kraepelin began establishing exactly how many different types there were.  Working with a large number of case studies, Kraepelin began grouping together illnesses which he observed to bare some resemblance to one another and concluded on the basis of this that catatonia, hebephrenia and dementia paranoides were manifestations of the same illness, therefore naming the illness dementia praecox.

The importance of Kraepelin’s work here is not only because of his ideas on psychiatric classification but because it is in Kraepelin’s work - Boyle (2000) notes - that marks the beginnings of the diagnostic issues following psychiatric classification.  To illustrate this point, Boyle (2002) notes that in Kraepelins work, he more than once changed his mind about the putative regularities which allows dementia praecox to be inferred (Boyle, 2002).  The scale of the increase was seen by the fact that…

“In 1896 a discussion of the constructs of dementia praecox and catatonia took up about thirty-seven pages.  In the 6th edition, dementia praecox occupied seventy-seven pages; by the 8th edition, the discussion had grown to 356 pages.  This increase was almost wholly accounted for by the proliferation of behaviours said to be symptoms of dementia praecox” (Boyle, 2002; p.47). 

Dementia praecox was later renamed ‘schizophrenia’ by psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler in 1911 as it became clear that Kraepelin’s name was not an adequate description of the condition.  He based this diagnosis on the signs and symptoms he considered common to a number of patients.  Bleuler distinguished four primary symptoms, i.e. association disturbance, affective disturbance, ambivalence and autism.  Bleuler viewed the splitting of mental functions as the main feature of patients with schizophrenia (Bentall, 2003).  The psychiatrist Kurt Schneider (-) listed the particular forms of psychotic symptoms which he thought were particularly useful in distinguishing between schizophrenia and other disorders. These were called ‘first rank symptoms’ i.e. all forms of hallucinations, delusions, or passivity experienced.  

Aside these obvious differences Kraepelin, Bleuler and Schneider attributes to be characteristic of schizophrenia, what is perhaps even more surprising is, as Boyle (2002) states…

 “In spite of aligning themselves to a scientific framework, not one of them presented a single piece of data relevant to their assumption that they were justified in introducing and using the concepts of dementia praecox and schizophrenia.  They presented instead their own beliefs, backed up by authority” (Boyle, 2002. p 80). 

The work of Kraepelin, Bleuler, and Schneider represent a chronological order that illustrates (very briefly) not only the development of schizophrenia but also the differences each have placed as characteristic to the disorder. This early disagreement demonstrates one of such several similar debates that have continued to surface throughout the concepts years and is also one that has subsequently resulted in a continued redefinition of schizophrenic diagnosing.  It was through such encountered confusion that advocated a taskforce in creating a standardised diagnostic system.  The result, published in 1952, was the first of many editions of the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

Join now!

The legacy of Kraepelin’s psychiatric classification paradigm remains almost unchallenged in the mental health profession of today (Bentall 2003).  Bentall (2003) comments that this is evident from four observations: The first, Bentall (2003) recognises that in modern text books of psychopathology, organisation tends to represent a Kraepelinian style system whereby chapter headings for each disorder are independent from one another.  The second, current official diagnostic systems from such advocates as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the American Psychiatric Association (APA) are structured in a Kraepelinian fashion reflecting the assumptions he had about mental disorders.  Third, most research is ...

This is a preview of the whole essay