By Brianna Lee, ACS Clinical Intern 

When a young person is navigating a mental health disorder (i.e., anxiety, ADHD, depression, OCD, trauma-related conditions), it is tempting for the adults around them to focus on what is wrong. Symptom checklists, behavior charts, and diagnostic labels can quietly narrow our view until we see the disorder before we see the child. Strength-based practices can offer a corrective experience as they are grounded in positive psychology and resilience research and does not deny the reality of a diagnosis. Instead, it insists that every young person also carries capacities, values, and resources that are essential to their own journey towards symptom management or recovery (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Masten, 2001; Saleebey, 2012) . 

Start with a strengths inventory, not a symptom list: 

Before problem-solving, ask the youth to name what they are good at, what they care about, and when they last felt proud of themselves. Parents and teachers can contribute observations the child might minimize: persistence during a hard week, kindness to a sibling, creative problem-solving. Tools such as the VIA Youth Character Strengths Survey can help structure this process, but a simple conversation or a check-in often works just as well (Park & Peterson, 2006). 

Reframe symptoms as adaptations: 

A teenager with anxiety is often deeply attuned to others. A child with ADHD frequently brings creativity, humor, and divergent thinking (Climie & Mastoras, 2015). This is not toxic positivity; the impairment is real, but reframing helps young people separate their identity from their diagnosis and increases engagement in treatment (Tedeschi & Kilmer, 2005).  

Set goals framed through growth: 

Rather than “reduce panic attacks,” a strength-based goal might read: “Use my curiosity to notice what my body is telling me, and practice one grounding skill I choose.” Goals written in the young person’s own words, drawing on their existing capacities, are more likely to be pursued (Rashid, 2015). 

For educators, this means designing accommodations that leverage strengths: a student with social anxiety may thrive as a peer mentor to younger children, building confidence through a role they already inhabit well. For parents, it means noticing aloud: “I saw you take a break when you felt overwhelmed. That took self-awareness.” For adolescents reading this, it means giving yourself credit for the strategies you are already using, even the small ones.  

Strength-based practice is not a replacement for evidence-based treatment; it is the relational and motivational foundation on which treatment succeeds. When young people feel seen as whole: capable, complex, and worth investing in, they participate more fully in their own healing. That participation, more than any single intervention, is what changes trajectories. 

Citations:  

Climie, E. A., & Mastoras, S. M. (2015). ADHD in schools: Adopting a strengths-based perspective. Canadian Psychology, 56(3), 295–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000030 

Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227 

Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2006). Moral competence and character strengths among adolescents: The development and validation of the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths for Youth. Journal of Adolescence, 29(6), 891–909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.04.011 

Rashid, T. (2015). Positive psychotherapy: A strength-based approach. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.920411 

Saleebey, D. (2012). The strengths perspective in social work practice (6th ed.). Pearson. 

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5 

Tedeschi, R. G., & Kilmer, R. P. (2005). Assessing strengths, resilience, and growth to guide clinical interventions. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(3), 230–237. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.36.3.230