Diagnostic method

A system for psychometric analysis and diagnosis comprising an evaluation set of numbered questions. In a computerized version thereof, each numbered question is displayed on an I/O device with a rating scale and explanation thereof for the question. The clinician will then enter a rating datum for the numbered questions into the computer. When all evaluation set data is entered, the system will produce a graphic display or displays of the evaluation, and prioritize the symptomatic problem areas and assets of the current patient. The data of at least one previous patient may be retrieved and compared against the data of the current patient. Subsequent evaluation sets may be simultaneously graphed and compared with earlier evaluation sets, with the improvement or deterioration of patient status therebetween quickly quantified.

BACKGROUND 
1. Field of the Invention: 
The present invention relates generally to psychometric studies. More 
particularly, the present invention relates to a computer program enabling 
a mental health clinician, of less skill than an M.D., D.O., or Ph.D., to 
perform psychometric evaluations, obtain meaningful symptomatic analysis, 
and recommend courses of treatment from the evaluation. 
2. Discussion of the Related Art: 
Heretofore, psychological evaluations and diagnosis were largely conducted 
by letting the patient discuss his feelings in a monologue, either 
unguided or guided by the mental health practitioner. From this monologue, 
the practitioner ascertains symptoms of psychological impairment and/or 
areas of adequate psychological functioning, i.e., a picture of the mental 
health of the patient. 
From these symptoms the practitioner decides on a course of treatment for 
the symptoms of the patient. 
Further, such a traditional approach suffers from a number of shortcomings, 
among which are: 
(1) the length of time necessary to develop an adequate diagnosis; 
(2) a high level of training and skill, e.g. an M.D., D.O., or Ph.D. is 
ordinarily required of the practitioner to conduct such an evaluation; 
(3) the evaluation process lacks uniformity and reliability when conducted 
either by a single practitioner or, especially, by different 
practitioners; and particularly as applied over a series of evaluations; 
(4) the evaluation process is not readily understood by patients; and 
(5) the evaluation is not readily quantifiable in numerical terms or easily 
displayed in a graphic format. 
Some tools exist to address some of these deficiencies, in part. A magazine 
article authored by J. Hedlund and B Vieweg which discusses computer usage 
in psychiatric practice can be found in the April 1988 issue of 
Psychiatric Annals on pages 217-227, and this article contains an 
extensive list of references. 
Although discussing pioneering efforts and work accomplished so far, two of 
the findings of the above-identified magazine article are of note here: 
(1) there has been surprisingly little development of new psychological 
testing designed to take advantage of the special capabilities of the 
computer, and (2) the danger that automation of the testing will increase 
the problem of invalid interpretation by untrained people. This points to 
the need in the art for a well defined test, of general applicability, 
that calls for responses and reduces the likelihood of misinterpretation 
of results, while taking advantage of the power of computers of today, 
especially office and personal computers. 
A well-known work in the field of mental health as is the Diagnostic and 
Statistical Manual of Mental Health, American Psychiatric Association, 3rd 
ed. rev. (1987) and 4th ed. rev. (1994) (hereinafter abbreviated DSM). 
This text contains lists of diagnostic categories and criteria, with a 
scale, weighted 0-6, to score responses. The DSM system does not quantify 
severity in a measurable term except in an estimated GAFS score nor does 
it address a functional level of a healthy individual. Grading on the DSM 
scale, while using the same spread, does not have the same severity from 
response to response. That is, a grade of 4 in one category does not 
correspond to a grade of 4 in another category. Therefore, an overall 
consistency is not achieved by the DSM system, hindering significance in 
diagnosis and treatment. Other clinical assessment tools currently exist, 
particularly the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), 
Global Assessment Scale, Mini Psychiatric Scale, the Hamilton anxiety 
scale, the Hamilton Depression Scale, and the Beck Inventory. Like the 
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the effectiveness of these devices is 
limited: the GAS, and Mini Psychiatric Scale are too broad in scope; and 
the Hamilton and Beck Inventory are too restricted in specificity. 
Neuropsychological testing is generally very specific in scope, as 
available in the prior art. Thus, these tools are therefore only of 
limited assistance in general situations, or are effective only in 
specialized circumstances; they do not cover the variety of individual 
differences in health or in pathological adaptation. 
A need therefore exists in the art for a concise, easily utilized, 
consistent and readily graphed and understood psychometric and diagnostic 
method, and particularly for such a method which is easily accessible and 
manipulatable, and which has its entire stock of diagnostic evaluations 
readily available and comparable with each other. 
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
The present invention solves the aforementioned problems of the traditional 
approach of psychological observation, by providing the system of 
psychometric analysis and diagnosis, preferably utilizing a computer 
having a CPU, Input/Output devices, memory, and operating systems 
therefor, comprising the steps of 
(a) storing data representing a list of numbered evaluative indicators in a 
computer memory; 
(b) displaying the evaluative indicators on an Input/Output device; 
(c) entering a numerical datum score of patient performance level, 
corresponding to a response of a patient for each evaluative indicator, 
with an Input/Output device into the computer memory, the total data 
representing an evaluation; 
(d) calculating graph coordinates within a CPU using the numerical data on 
a first axis and evaluative indicators on a second axis; 
(e) displaying a graph of the coordinates on an Input/Output device; 
(f) evaluating the numerical data within the CPU to determine the 
psychiatric symptoms and assets of the patient; 
(g) matching the evaluated data with treatment plan options stored in the 
computer memory to select a treatment plan for the patient; and 
(h) displaying the selected treatment plan on an Input/Output device. 
It will be realized by the artisan that the majority of the system 
functions described herein may be performed manually by a mental health 
practitioner with appropriate forms and the like. Such a use of the 
system, while much more labor intensive than the computerized versions 
described herein, may be the preferred application in certain 
environments, and is meant to be encompassed as an embodiment of the 
present invention. The system of the present invention is given the 
designation of the Goknar Master Assessment and Progress Scale, 
abbreviated MAPS. 
Generally, a first evaluation will be conducted by scoring a complete list 
of evaluative indicators to form a whole, or global, psychiatric profile, 
or evaluation, of the patient. The indicators are grouped into the 
diagnostic categories Function, Cognition, Emotion, Behavior, Personality, 
and Risk Factors. A like number of indicators are scored for each 
category. 
Scoring scale explanatory text accompanies each indicator providing 
consistent rating criteria for the numerical datum. The scale goes from a 
number one which is an excellent rating, to a number eight, which is an 
extreme or critical rating. It is an advantage of the present invention 
that a standardized scale is provided, in which responses from one 
category may be compared to responses from another category. 
The scoring scale for evaluating an answer of the patient was developed 
using the reference of what previously existed in the art as a starting 
point. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual scale of 0-6 was modified in 
two important ways: (1) these DSM negative response indicators 1-6 were 
correlated to 3-8 on the MAPS rating scale according to the present 
invention; (2) positive health factors, or assets, were included at 
rankings 1 & 2. Thus, the MAPS scale runs from 1, a superior, beneficial 
quality, to an 8, a catastrophic dysfunction, indicating a dangerous 
characteristic. 
It should be noted that while the MAPS scale is based loosely upon the DSM 
scale, this was done for ease of reference for many practitioners. 
Specifically of note is that MAPS avoids the drawbacks of DSM and other 
available systems by the careful composition of each question to allow for 
a "global" or total psychological picture of a patient. This is achieved 
by correlation of the question, to compliment or contrast another 
question, thus revealing nuances and insights which allow for a most 
suitable diagnosis and priorities in treatment. 
The scale also points out the versatility of MAPS: it can be used 
effectively on virtually any patient. Not confined to specific disorders, 
it can diagnose diverse ailments, or identify a healthy individual, and 
rank his or her level of adaptation. The inclusion of assets in the 
considerations affords this. The scoring is balanced to account for four 
components important in revealing pathology: (1) global score: (2) 
individual score on any given question; (3) cluster scores in six cluster 
categories; (4) Goknar Inventory Analysis, which breaks down total patient 
behavior into components thereof, and assigns a percentile rating to each 
of the components. 
The above-identified Goknar Inventory Index defines, with mathematical 
precision, the acute, subacute, chronic signs (in percentile) and the 
average and/or better than average responses (assets), again in percentile 
figures. The Goknar Inventory Index also categorizes the percentile of 
dangerous, extreme, severe, and marginal symptoms, comparing these with 
the average and/or asset results. 
Once the evaluation is complete, i.e., all data are entered into memory, 
the system requires that the operator, with or without the aid of the 
computer, perform the following functions: total the data to produce an 
overall score; figure mean scores for each diagnostic category; display 
the results in graphic form, in line graph or bar graph form, or both; 
correlate individual indicators into psychiatric symptom subsets, and 
calculate the data therein and prioritize the symptoms in priority of 
morbidity and psychological asset strengths of the patient. The 
computerized system will perform the calculations according to algorithms 
conducted in the CPU on the data drawn from memory. 
The calculated data is compared and matched to various treatment options to 
select the treatment option or options most nearly fitting the 
psychological profile of the patient. The treatment option is then 
displayed, in the computerized embodiment on an Input/Output device if 
desired by the practitioner, or is recorded for later reference. 
Subsequent evaluations may be conducted with the entire list of indicators 
or may only include those indicators relevant to the psychological 
diagnosis of the patient and/or treatment plan. 
The graphs of subsequent evaluations are displayed concurrently with 
previous evaluations to present an easily understandable picture of the 
psychological improvement or deterioration of the patient. Subsequent 
evaluation data are also calculated against selected previous evaluation 
data to indicate percentages of psychological improvement or 
deterioration. Thus the present invention also is a means for predicting 
future psychological improvement or deterioration of the patient. 
Room for practitioner comments is provided for in each indicator datum 
location, as such comments will often be necessary in developing a patient 
psychological profile. All raw and calculated data is preserved in each 
file of the patient for later reference. The labeling of each evaluation 
is provided for in the system, to enable the practitioner to quickly 
recall and/or compare various evaluations. Preferably, an individual "best 
performance" evaluation is also conducted and entered into the file of the 
patient as a goal for patient treatment results. 
It is an object of the present invention to provide a standardized, 
systematic, diagnostic method in which ratings from one diagnostic 
category can be related and compared quantitatively with rating from 
another diagnostic category. In addition, the present invention provides 
the clinician to predict which disorders may occur if the patient 
functions at a continued level. 
It is an advantage of the present invention that the numerical rating of a 
patient response to any given evaluative indicator can be related and 
quantitatively compared to a standardized rating scale. 
It is a feature of the present invention that total patient behavior is 
statistically evaluated and broken down into components thereof, with a 
percentile rating being assigned to each component. 
The system of the present invention additionally provides a clinical 
assessment which lists a set of dysfunctions, physical or psychological, 
upon the responses of the patient. Additionally, the system provides a 
comparison between the results of the current patient and the results of 
other patients who was administered the same test. 
Alternatively, the present invention provides a more sensitive rating 
system by adding more diagnostic categories, giving a finer definition of 
each score. 
Other attendant advantages will be more readily appreciated as the same 
becomes better understood by reference to the following detailed 
description and considered in connection with the accompanying drawings, 
in which, like reference numerals designate like parts throughout the 
figures.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT 
Referring to FIG. 1, a block diagram representation of a system 
incorporating the present invention is shown. The system will include such 
standard hardware elements of computer functioning as a memory 102, a 
central processing unit or CPU 104, and various Input/Output devices 105 
such as may include: a disk storage unit 108 or computer/user interfaces 
such as a video monitor 110, a keyboard 112, and a printer 114. All the 
components are connected through a system bus 116 to allow communication 
between the components. 
A diagnostic program of computer software, an exemplary portion of which is 
attached to Provisional Application 60/027,087 as Appendix A, and which is 
incorporated herein by reference, is loaded into the memory 102 and/or 
retained in part in the disk storage 108 to be called as needed. The 
program contains instruction sets of data representing operating systems 
or procedures 117 to run the program and perform recurrent management 
tasks of the program such as data entry operations, and the like, and is 
retained in the memory 102 for quick access. A further discussion of the 
software will take place hereinbelow. Smaller instruction sets or those 
needed for occasional program tasks 118, 120, 122, 123 are labeled 
application systems 124 and may be placed in the memory 102 from the disk 
storage 108 as needed when called for by the operating system 117. 
As seen in FIG. 2, the diagnostic program contains operating systems which 
help an operator create a file 144, which is a memory or data grouping 
containing all data relevant to a particular patient. The file header 146 
contains necessary patient demographic information and evaluation 
information such as dates, name of the evaluator, etc. Entry of this 
header data into computer memory by operation of the keyboard 112 creates 
a patient file capable of holding all subsequent evaluation data for the 
patient. Alternatively, data entry may take place by scanning a form which 
has been filled out by the patient or subject with whom the system is 
being used. By using a commercially available scanner with character 
recognition software, the contents of the form i.e., the text written 
thereupon may be read into the memory of the computer. The form may be 
substantially similar in its layout to the file 144 which is depicted in 
FIG. 2. The use of a scanner recognition software is well known in the 
art, and may provide for substantially simpler use of the system 10 of the 
present invention. 
Also loaded in the memory 102 are data representing specific responses of a 
patient to a series of evaluative indicators 126, which are displayed as 
textual reference, an illustrative example of questions and the available 
responses is shown in FIG. 3, which are intended to be displayed on the 
video monitor 110. The indicators 126 are components of individual 
diagnostic factors concerning the physical, mental, and environmental 
state of the patient. The indicators 126 are individually numbered and 
grouped into six diagnostic categories of Function, Cognition, Emotion, 
Behavior, Personality, and Risk Factors, or the patient. In the preferred 
embodiment, there are eight indicators for each diagnostic category for a 
total of forty-eight indicators. An illustrative sampling of the 
forty-eight evaluative indicators which are included in Provisional 
Application 60/027,087 as Appendix B. 
It should also be appreciated that the answers to these questions may be 
entered into the computer via a scanner and optical character recognizing 
software, just as is available with respect to the data form mentioned 
herein above. Further, it should be noted that a preferred and common 
usage of the present system will involve computer systems running the 
popular format Windows, produced by Microsoft. The present system is 
capable of use in the Windows 3.1 version, as well as one the newer 
Windows 95 version. It if foreseen that the present system can be modified 
to perform on newer versions of Windows, or in other similar environments, 
such as Apple Macintosh products, and the like. 
Preferably, the clinician, who administers the questioning to determine the 
appropriate patient response for each evaluative indicator, will have at 
least a 4-year college degree in an area relevant to mental health, as 
well as one year of clinical psychiatric experience, and 24 hours of 
training in the application of the MAPS system. The system of the present 
invitation is not intended for use by amateur or unskilled personnel. 
As seen in FIG. 3, the displayed screen 135 includes of a title 136 for the 
diagnostic factor of the evaluative indicator 137, a brief exposition 138 
of the title 136 detailing what is to be rated, and a rating scale 
explanation 140 to provide guidance to the evaluator, or clinician, in 
selecting a numerical datum score for the indicator according to a 
response given by a patient, the datum, which is then placed in a datum 
space provided there for retrieval by the evaluator through operation of 
the keyboard 112. The datum is retained in the memory 102 for later 
processing, as further explained below. An evaluation involves entering 
data corresponding to responses obtained for all indicators scored in a 
particular rating session; whether all forty-eight indicators, that is, a 
complete evaluation, or a lesser amount thereof, which is a partial 
evaluation; plus supplemental comments on the individual evaluative 
indicator patient performance entered into the memory 102 by the 
evaluator. 
The clinician may pose the questions to a patient and write down the 
responses on a form which may then be read into the computer via a scanner 
as described herein above. 
Once all evaluation data has been entered into the memory 102, via the 
keyboard or a scanner, algorithms contained within the applications or 
operating systems of the memory 102 will direct the CPU 104 in calculating 
graph coordinates for graphing of the evaluation data against the 
diagnostic category as seen in the bar graph 148 of FIG. 4, or against the 
numbered indicators, as seen in the line graph 150 of FIG. 4. The graph 
coordinates will then be sent out to the printer 114 and/or monitor 110, 
or other suitable Input/Output device, for displaying the graph(s) 148, 
150 to provide a graphic illustration of the evaluation results, the 
graphic form being readily understandable and viewable by both the patient 
and the mental health practitioner. 
As seen in FIG. 1, the evaluation numerical data in the memory 102 is then 
calculated by the CPU 104 according to algorithms contained in the 
operating systems 117 to derive total scores and mean scores for each 
diagnostic category and the calculation results displayed on a suitable 
Input/Output device 106. The mean scores may further be used to determine 
bar graph coordinates for the display of a bar graph 148 plotting the mean 
scores against each diagnostic category. The data may also be used to 
calculate the Goknar Inventory Index according to predetermined algorithms 
stored in memory 102. 
Additionally supplied by the present system is a means for predicting for 
the future psychological improvement or deterioration of the patient. This 
is accomplished by altering the numerical ratings supplied by the 
clinician. A full discussion of this feature of the present invention 
follows herein below. 
The special nature and design of the Goknar Inventory Index should be noted 
here, so that its contribution to the art can be appreciated. The Goknar 
Inventory Index allows for numerical representation of the clinical 
symptoms and severity levels of the patient, according to information 
received from the patient in his responses, as an index of clinical 
significance. By being able to represent these concepts mathematically, 
the Goknar Inventory Index achieves significant advantages over the 
previous systems. 
First, the index summarizes the functional level of an individual at the 
time of evaluation. This provides baseline information and can be compared 
with the Goknar Inventory Indexes of other examinations, giving a 
comparative clinical picture of a progress or illness of the patient from 
stage to stage, illustrating dynamically the improvement or deterioration 
of the patient. 
In addition, the Goknar Inventory Index allows for categorization of the 
extent of the symptoms and assets of a patient, and allows for 
quantitative breakdown of the behavior of the patient into components. The 
Index shows where a patient, or a percentage basis, scores for assets, 
normal or average behavior, and various degrees of dysfunction, from 
chronic, up through subacute, to acute symptoms. 
Further, extreme and dangerous behavior is categorized. This is quite 
valuable, as proper application of the MAPS system will show patients who 
should be institutionalized for their own good, as well as the good of 
society. It also will point out trends in this direction and point out 
applicable treatment options. Thus, the Goknar Inventory Index is a major 
advance in the art and, as part of MAPS, allows a professional having less 
training than an M.D., D.O., or Ph.D. to achieve useful results after each 
evaluation, with interpretation showing current status as well as the 
progress of the patient. 
In a professional format, the Goknar Inventory Index is derived by starting 
with a first or baseline evaluation, in which the interviewer obtains 
responses from the patient for all 48 questions, as seen, for example, in 
Appendix B, in all the six functional areas previously identified. The 
response to each question is rated on a scale of 1-8, with a rating of 1 
representing the best condition and 8 representing the most extreme 
catastrophic or dysfunctional condition. The response received are then 
related, firstly to the categories of average, and assets, and secondly, 
to a severity ranking of dangerous, extreme, severe, marginal and 
average/assets. In each case, a percentage is indicated for each category. 
The answers are evaluated according to a rating scale, which corresponds to 
the 1-8 scores. A rating of Dangerous equates with an 8 rating and denotes 
a dangerous situation, such as homicidal, suicidal, or catastrophic 
condition. This requires documentation. 
A rating of Extreme equates with a 7 score, which denotes extreme problem 
such as unpredictability, disintegration, and the like. A rating of Severe 
equates with a score of 6, and indicates a severe condition or psychotic 
responses. Both an Extreme rating and a Severe rating also requires 
documentation. A rating of Moderate corresponds with a score of 5. A 
rating of Marginal corresponds with a score of 4. A rating of Average 
corresponds with a score of 3. Scores of 2or 1 are given a rating of 
Asset, above average or superior, which also requires documentation. 
After the complete evaluation is obtained, the total number of ratings with 
a score of 3 are divided by the total number of questions to determine a 
percentage of average responses. This number is 48 in full evaluation. In 
a like manner, the total number of responses with a score of 2 to 1 is 
divided by the total number of indicators to determine a percentage of 
assets of the patient. In the initial baseline evaluation, no rating is 
make of acute, subacute, or chronic behavior because this only has 
relevance in a series of evaluations in terms of a change in behavior. The 
initial percentage ratings for average responses and responses indicating 
assets are listed under the heading Episode. Under a separate heading of 
Severity, a listing is made for the percent of answers corresponding to 
dangerous, extreme, severe, marginal, and average/asset responses are 
calculated in a manner similar to that described above for average and 
assets. Under the heading of Severity, average and asset responses, that 
is, ratings with a score of 1-3, are lumped together in the category of 
average/asset. The categories of severity may be rated in the initial 
baseline interview, and do not require a change over time. 
If is to be noted that a second embodiment of the present invention 
provides for a more sensitive rating system. Additional categories are 
added, with successive additional numerical ratings, i.e., 9, 10, etc. The 
additional categories gives a finer definition of each score. This in turn 
allows for the more particular ratings to be used to identify more 
particularly dysfunctions or assets. Accordingly, it is to be noted that 
the cumulative scores are increased under this second system. 
After a period of time which the evaluator feels appropriate, a second 
interview is conducted. Such a period may last from as little as a few 
days up to a period of weeks, ranging from three to six months. The period 
could be even longer, depending upon the individual patient. In the second 
interview, the patient gives responses to each of the identical evaluative 
indicators which were rated in the first interview. The new responses are 
then evaluated in the same manner as the initial responses. This will show 
changes in the various categories, either relatively stable with minimal 
changes, and improvement in the condition of the patient, or possible a 
deterioration in the condition of the patient. 
In a preferred embodiment hereof, in the initial evaluation or at another 
time, the patient provides information on his or her best period of 
functioning within the last five years, and provides responses to each of 
the evaluative indicators rating the best performances of that patient in 
the last five year period. In the discretion of the evaluator, if a 
particular situation warrants going back beyond five years for a rating of 
the best performance of the patient, this may also be done. A period 
beyond five years would indicate a chronic condition. 
An additional scale is used to evaluate changes in the patient from the 
response rating for the best performance in the past five year period. 
Three ratings are used in this scale: acute, subacute, and chronic. 
Questions with a 4 or more rating point increase between the response 
corresponding to the best performance period and the response of the 
current evaluation, or with a 4 or more rating point difference between 
evaluations, are classified as acute. Questions with a 3 point increase 
between the best evaluation and the current evaluation, or between 
subsequent evaluations, are classified as subacute. Questions with a 2 or 
1 point increase, or no change, between the best performance period in the 
current evaluation period, or between subsequent evaluations, are 
classified as chronic. 
The categories of acute, subacute, and chronic are rated for any period 
which is increased from the best period and for every subsequent period, 
in a manner similar to that outline above for average and asset ratings. 
In the second embodiment of this system, the additional scale may also be 
extended, as the number or rated systems has been so extended. 
The evaluated data may then be compared against known treatments for 
similar data profiles and a treatment selected from memory for the patient 
file and displayed on an Input/Output device. For instance, a total score 
of over 230 may be criteria for admitting a patient to a hospital, scores 
of 190-229 may indicate admission to a hospital day program, and scores of 
110-189 may indicate a need for outpatient therapy. In chronic conditions 
these scores may move upward. 
Subsequent evaluations, either complete or partial, are conducted with 
operating systems tailored to subsequent iterations of patient evaluations 
and, upon completion, are entered in the file of the patient. The 
subsequent evaluation data can be graphically displayed together with 
earlier evaluations on an Input/Output device to produce a readily 
understood picture of the improvement or deterioration of the patient in 
each selected diagnostic category. 
Additionally, as embodied in the present system, there is provided a means 
for predicting for future improvement and/or deterioration of a patient. 
This is depicted as the predict task 123 of FIG. 1. To accomplish this, 
the survey results obtained from the patient, that is, the numerical 
results, are artificially inflated to simulate a deterioration in the 
condition of the patient, or reduced to simulate functional improvement. 
The clinician may view these "new" results to see what may happen to the 
patient regarding possible new disorders or curing of old disorders, as a 
patient improves or deteriorates. 
The predicted results may additionally be printed in graphical form so a 
clinician may show the patient what might occur, what disorders might 
manifest or cease if the patient improves or deteriorates their function, 
as it relates to the rated questions. With the second embodiment of the 
present system, it is understood that finer gradiations and additional 
rating categories will provide even greater opportunity for the skilled 
clinician to properly diagnose the patient and the illness(es) present. 
The clinician may also predict what disorders may occur if the patient 
functions at an improved or deteriorated level in any of the six 
diagnostic categories. To accomplish this, the answer to each question 
which falls under a selected diagnostic category, rated as 1-8, may be 
inflated or reduced to simulate the improvement or deterioration of a 
patient in that one category. Numerical percentages or improvement in the 
mean score of each selected diagnostic category may also be calculated and 
displayed. Again, in the second embodiment of this system, disorders are 
more easily discerned in the increased sensitivity index. 
In use, the operator will load the software into the memory 102 by means of 
a disk (not shown) in disk storage 108 and call up a file header 146. File 
data will be entered into memory 102 according to the labels 152 on the 
header and a patient file 144 is thereby created. 
The data representing patient responses to the evaluative indicators will 
be serially withdrawn from memory 102 and displayed in operator 
intelligible form on the video monitor 10. The operator will then enter a 
numerical datum score for each displayed indicator by means of the 
keyboard 112, or scanner, using the displayed scale explanation 140 for 
help in rating, if needed. 
It will be appreciated that due to the format of the present diagnostic 
system a relatively unskilled mental health practitioner, such as a 
clinician having a 4-year degree, rather than an M.D., D.O. or Ph.D. can 
perform the evaluation and obtain consistent and accurate results. 
Once the indicators have been scored or rated, the system will graphically 
an numerically display the calculated and analyzed results of the raw data 
as discussed above. Because the data is quantified on a numerical scale, 
it is readily understood and appreciated by both the practitioner and the 
patient. This will lead to decreased patient anxiety over the process and 
increased patient participation in the psychological diagnosis and 
treatment. 
The system of the present invention additionally provides a clinical 
assessment which will list a set of dysfunctions, whether physical, 
social, or psychological, which may be present upon the responses of the 
patient. This clinical assessment is shown in the example which follows 
hereinbelow. 
A clinical assessment may be produced for a predicted improvement or 
decline in any of the six categories, or for individual questions as well. 
In this way, a clinician can see, by the assessment, what dysfunction may 
manifest or cease based upon the improvement or decline of a patient. This 
can help the clinician choose appropriate treatments and an appropriate 
timetable for the application. 
In addition the system provides not only a comparison of the individual 
with himself/herself in relation to past, present, and progress stages, 
but also a comparison with other individual(s) who took the same test. 
Especially in marital, couple, family relationships such comparison leads 
to a scientifically sensible analysis of the similarity and differences, 
(compatibility profile), crucial in the treatment and resolution of the 
conflict. System specifically programmed to provide on going information 
on those lines covering past, present, progress stages, maturational 
levels of the partners to help them work together in their difficulties, 
or support each other on their strongest point.