Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/29290
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.date.accessioned2018-04-18T06:45:47Z
dc.date.available2018-04-18T06:45:47Z
dc.date.issued1999-07
dc.identifier.citationBartolo, P. A. (1999). Naturalistic decision-making frameworks in multiprofessional assessment of early childhood disability (Doctoral thesis). University of London.en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar//handle/123456789/29290
dc.descriptionPH.D.
dc.description.abstractYoung children with complex developmental difficulties are often referred for assessment by multiprofessional groups run by health or education services. The purpose of this research is to identify and describe the frameworks within which such groups make their judgements and decisions in real work settings. This study adopted an exploratory. multiple-case research design. It involved two tertiary multiprofessional groups in London. Each assessed two preschool children whose difficulties were suspected to lie within the autistic spectrum. One group consisted of a paediatric senior registrar. a clinical psychologist and a speech therapist working within a neurodisability centre attached to a hospital (Site M); the other group was multi-agency. managed by an Educational Psychology Service and included educational psychologists. a psychotherapist and the deputy head of a special school (Site E). Each child was assessed by all the professionals simultaneously in the presence of the parents over a morning session. All discussions were audio-recorded. Postassessment interviews were held with each participant. Data were subjected to verbal protocol analysis and discourse and conversation analysis. The major finding of the study was that professionals made use of four types of interlinked decision-making frameworks. activated either concurrently or in close alternation. Firstly. a common procedural framework included hypothesis testing and diagnosis carried out in three cycles of decision making. with varying characteristics related to the different institutional contexts of each Site. Secondly. knowledge frameworks were mainly within the 'disease' model at Site M, and the 'psychodynamic' and 'behavioural' models at Site E. Thirdly. goal structures were related to which client and purpose each assessment was intended to serve. Finally, negotiation frameworks consisted of inter-professional collaboration and power-game structures. and professional-parent interaction structures for negotiating the bad news. These findings have implications for research on decision making in assessment of children with disability, as well as for professional practice and training.en_GB
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccessen_GB
dc.subjectDecision making -- Psychic aspectsen_GB
dc.subjectProblem solving -- Psychological aspectsen_GB
dc.subjectDevelopmental disabilities -- Psychological aspectsen_GB
dc.subjectChildren with disabilities -- Educationen_GB
dc.titleNaturalistic decision-making frameworks in multiprofessional assessment of early childhood disabilityen_GB
dc.typedoctoralThesisen_GB
dc.rights.holderThe copyright of this work belongs to the author(s)/publisher. The rights of this work are as defined by the appropriate Copyright Legislation or as modified by any successive legislation. Users may access this work and can make use of the information contained in accordance with the Copyright Legislation provided that the author must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the prior permission of the copyright holderen_GB
dc.publisher.institutionUniversity of Londonen_GB
dc.publisher.departmentDepartment of Educationen_GB
dc.description.reviewedN/Aen_GB
dc.contributor.creatorBartolo, Paul A.
Appears in Collections:Foreign dissertations - FacSoWPsy

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Naturalistic_decision-making-frameworks_in_multiprofessional_assessment_of_early_childhood_disability.pdf
  Restricted Access
12.06 MBAdobe PDFView/Open Request a copy


Items in OAR@UM are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.