NVO toets 2 voorbereiding
Inhoudsopgave
Reader........................................................................................................................................................... 2
Chapter 1 – Introduction......................................................................................................................................2
Chapter 5 – Diagnostic models and processes.....................................................................................................6
Chapter 6 – Critical questions regarding treatment..........................................................................................11
Chapter 7 – Psychometrics.................................................................................................................................13
Chapter 8 – Social challenges in and for clinical practices.................................................................................15
,Reader
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Prof-eds’ sensitivity to social values
The power of traditions
Prof-eds tend to warrant space for traditions as a source for substantiating what is health.
They generally do not strongly oppose these practices, as long as these traditions don’t harm
the child; not because they favor these traditions, but because they are aware that the prof-
ed’s acceptance of such traditional interventions may be conducive to client’s acceptance of
more modern, evidence-based interventions. Denying or rejecting the force of tradition
could easily lead to clients’ rejection, refusal or evasion of prof-ed’s interventions.
Communities of consensus
Prof-eds tend to use communities of consensus as a source of substantiation of health. The
difference between traditions and consensus is the temporal aspect.
- Traditions: rules evolved in the past
- Consensus: Temporal Rules or agreements that have a more recent status,
emerging in the present, that allows to see the actual engagement and discussion of
persons and groups involved.
There are three different consensus strategies:
1. A community can be directly involved in defining what is a proper intervention or
what is desired behavior In this approach a social network surrounding a client is
invited to meet and talk about what to do to optimize the education of the client to
achieve better social adjustment or healthier behavior of the client.
2. Prof-eds can use legislation combined with a notion of what are common measures
for health optimization in their community as indicators of consensus in this current
community.
3. Using the scientific community as a referent e.g. DSM-5. Communities of experts
may decide to write protocols as guidelines about how to prevent, signal, or diagnose
health risks and what should or could be done to make sure that health promoting
conditions are realized.
A cultural-historical approach to educational challenges
Vygotsky and today’s scholars inspired by him suggest that the challenges met by prof-eds
should always be defined and approached from the perspective that society is not capable or
willing to invest in finding ways to equip functionally impaired persons with the tools needed
for conquering or compensating for the functional impairment. Scholars like Vygotsky and
Jantzen suggest that children or adults who are incapable of understanding and regulating a
functional impairment and its consequences, cannot be held responsible for it.
Seeking to develop tools to help clients is a responsibility of a social and professional
community that extends beyond any single prof-ed and any single prof-ed’s lifetime. If not
today than they should find the solution as soon as possible. They should not become
complacent and stop seeking opportunities to resolve problems that hinder clients from
developing personally and socially valued competences and good quality of life, in short,
good health. Prof-eds not just use instruments that are readily available, they also develop
and validate instruments for diagnostics, interventions and models of implementation.
Interpersonal relationships and tools used by prof-eds
, The use of interpersonal relationships and tools is central to the way scholars in the cultural-
historical approach explain normative developmental processes as well as developmental
psychopathology. At the same time, they are keenly aware of the fact that the carriers of
development are physical and biological entities. They primarily use interpersonal
relationships and non-invasive tools to optimize clients’ well-being and development. If
something is wrong with the physiological or neurological functioning of a client, they will
seek to address this with interventions that try to induce a form of social or socialized
regulation of the physical or biological challenges and the psychological consequences. Good
knowledge of the physical and biological characteristics and processes that are involved in a
person’s functioning and development is important for prof-eds and their clients.
Iatrogenic effects
Iatrogenic effects: negative consequences of pedagogical, clinical acting. Not everything
done by a prof-ed is good or just. What clinicians do may even be detrimental to clients’
health and well-being.
Iatrogenic effects are likely to occur when prof-eds willfully or unconsciously contribute to a
client’s suboptimal functioning or problematic well-being.
Reactive pathogenic effects
Labels may guide the diagnostic process and may also be an important outcome of that
same process; a process that specifies the nature as well as the seriousness or intensity of
the problems that trouble the client and her or his social environment.
Good sides of labels:
- They are a condition for creating common understanding between prof-eds and
clients
- The outcomes of diagnostic processes analyzing the validity of use of the labels, are
important for justifying particular treatments or support and warrant financial
compensation for the costs involved.
Bad sides of labels:
- The client may be confronted with:
o Exclusion
o Feelings of distress
o Negative health consequences
- Labelling may also lead to a referral to a special school, special class, special program
or special attention
o As a result, the labelled children run a higher risk that peers will start evading,
rejecting or bullying them.
- Labels may make children’s characteristics more salient, which may make adults feel
ashamed or make them take measures that are meant to shelter the children from
other people’s negativity, but in effect also restrict the child’s social participation,
development opportunities, and well-being.
These are called reactive pathogenic effects: negative effects that are due to reactions by
others (parents, classmates, teachers and others) to a clinical treatment or diagnoses and
labels that are the consequence.
Facilitative pathogenic effects
Inhoudsopgave
Reader........................................................................................................................................................... 2
Chapter 1 – Introduction......................................................................................................................................2
Chapter 5 – Diagnostic models and processes.....................................................................................................6
Chapter 6 – Critical questions regarding treatment..........................................................................................11
Chapter 7 – Psychometrics.................................................................................................................................13
Chapter 8 – Social challenges in and for clinical practices.................................................................................15
,Reader
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Prof-eds’ sensitivity to social values
The power of traditions
Prof-eds tend to warrant space for traditions as a source for substantiating what is health.
They generally do not strongly oppose these practices, as long as these traditions don’t harm
the child; not because they favor these traditions, but because they are aware that the prof-
ed’s acceptance of such traditional interventions may be conducive to client’s acceptance of
more modern, evidence-based interventions. Denying or rejecting the force of tradition
could easily lead to clients’ rejection, refusal or evasion of prof-ed’s interventions.
Communities of consensus
Prof-eds tend to use communities of consensus as a source of substantiation of health. The
difference between traditions and consensus is the temporal aspect.
- Traditions: rules evolved in the past
- Consensus: Temporal Rules or agreements that have a more recent status,
emerging in the present, that allows to see the actual engagement and discussion of
persons and groups involved.
There are three different consensus strategies:
1. A community can be directly involved in defining what is a proper intervention or
what is desired behavior In this approach a social network surrounding a client is
invited to meet and talk about what to do to optimize the education of the client to
achieve better social adjustment or healthier behavior of the client.
2. Prof-eds can use legislation combined with a notion of what are common measures
for health optimization in their community as indicators of consensus in this current
community.
3. Using the scientific community as a referent e.g. DSM-5. Communities of experts
may decide to write protocols as guidelines about how to prevent, signal, or diagnose
health risks and what should or could be done to make sure that health promoting
conditions are realized.
A cultural-historical approach to educational challenges
Vygotsky and today’s scholars inspired by him suggest that the challenges met by prof-eds
should always be defined and approached from the perspective that society is not capable or
willing to invest in finding ways to equip functionally impaired persons with the tools needed
for conquering or compensating for the functional impairment. Scholars like Vygotsky and
Jantzen suggest that children or adults who are incapable of understanding and regulating a
functional impairment and its consequences, cannot be held responsible for it.
Seeking to develop tools to help clients is a responsibility of a social and professional
community that extends beyond any single prof-ed and any single prof-ed’s lifetime. If not
today than they should find the solution as soon as possible. They should not become
complacent and stop seeking opportunities to resolve problems that hinder clients from
developing personally and socially valued competences and good quality of life, in short,
good health. Prof-eds not just use instruments that are readily available, they also develop
and validate instruments for diagnostics, interventions and models of implementation.
Interpersonal relationships and tools used by prof-eds
, The use of interpersonal relationships and tools is central to the way scholars in the cultural-
historical approach explain normative developmental processes as well as developmental
psychopathology. At the same time, they are keenly aware of the fact that the carriers of
development are physical and biological entities. They primarily use interpersonal
relationships and non-invasive tools to optimize clients’ well-being and development. If
something is wrong with the physiological or neurological functioning of a client, they will
seek to address this with interventions that try to induce a form of social or socialized
regulation of the physical or biological challenges and the psychological consequences. Good
knowledge of the physical and biological characteristics and processes that are involved in a
person’s functioning and development is important for prof-eds and their clients.
Iatrogenic effects
Iatrogenic effects: negative consequences of pedagogical, clinical acting. Not everything
done by a prof-ed is good or just. What clinicians do may even be detrimental to clients’
health and well-being.
Iatrogenic effects are likely to occur when prof-eds willfully or unconsciously contribute to a
client’s suboptimal functioning or problematic well-being.
Reactive pathogenic effects
Labels may guide the diagnostic process and may also be an important outcome of that
same process; a process that specifies the nature as well as the seriousness or intensity of
the problems that trouble the client and her or his social environment.
Good sides of labels:
- They are a condition for creating common understanding between prof-eds and
clients
- The outcomes of diagnostic processes analyzing the validity of use of the labels, are
important for justifying particular treatments or support and warrant financial
compensation for the costs involved.
Bad sides of labels:
- The client may be confronted with:
o Exclusion
o Feelings of distress
o Negative health consequences
- Labelling may also lead to a referral to a special school, special class, special program
or special attention
o As a result, the labelled children run a higher risk that peers will start evading,
rejecting or bullying them.
- Labels may make children’s characteristics more salient, which may make adults feel
ashamed or make them take measures that are meant to shelter the children from
other people’s negativity, but in effect also restrict the child’s social participation,
development opportunities, and well-being.
These are called reactive pathogenic effects: negative effects that are due to reactions by
others (parents, classmates, teachers and others) to a clinical treatment or diagnoses and
labels that are the consequence.
Facilitative pathogenic effects
