China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Self-directedness and adult learning
Published in Jenny Gavriel, The Self-Directed Learner in Medical Education, 2005
In this model they propose that Self-directedness is fundamentally based upon the individual’s ownership of their own thoughts and actions: their personal responsibility. From this starting point there are two aspects to consider when targeting Self-direction in learning. The first, ‘Self-directed learning’, can be considered to represent the external factors or the processes involved. It includes all aspects of the learning process such as the needs analysis, learning resources, independent study, facilitated learning, evaluation and so on. The second, ‘learner Self-directedness’, can be considered to represent the internal factors. It is the individual learner’s desire to take responsibility for their learning. Brockett and Hiemstra4 suggest that there must be a balance between these two factors if the final goal of Self-direction in learning is to be achieved. They suggest that for optimal learning the learner’s desire to take responsibility must be matched by the opportunity for Self-direction in the learning process. This idea of matching is obviously similar to that proposed by Grow.1 The difference is that Brockett and Hiemstra do not suggest there should necessarily be a movement towards Self-directedness. They propose that Self-directedness is context specific and that this balance should be considered at each learning opportunity. Brockett and Hiemstra set this model within the wider social context, a breadth that is often left out of other considerations of Self-directedness. It recognises that learners are often (usually?) part of a wider group context, they are members of teams, part of a learning organisation and/or learning network. These factors will impact upon the learning processes and their desire to take responsibility. It would be disappointing to think that we did not have any form of influence as a key part of their network. Therefore, as well as the obvious control over the learning processes, we need to have some ability to impact those internal factors that influence the learner’s desire to take responsibility for their learning.
Personality and eating disorders
Published in Stephen Wonderlich, James E Mitchell, Martina de Zwaan, Howard Steiger, Annual Review of Eating Disorders Part 2 – 2006, 2018
Drew Westen, Heather Thompson-Brenner, Joanne Peart
Over the last decade, with the advent of the empirically supported therapies movement, research has focused on specific treatments for specific disorders, particularly cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) for BN. Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for treatments for AN are more sparse (but beginning to emerge). Researchers have examined the moderating role of personality on treatment response for several years, at least for BN patients. The literature is by no means entirely consistent (seeBossert et al. 1992; Bulik et al. 1998; Grilo et al. 2003), likely reflecting a number of factors, including lack of power to detect differences, lack of data on personality, differences across studies in inclusion and exclusion criteria, and perhaps most importantly, the fact that virtually all RCTs have excluded certain patients with severe PDs either explicitly or defacto (e.g. excluding patients with substance abuse and suicidality, which eliminates most BPD patients; seeThompson-Brenner et al. 2003). Nevertheless, the outlines of a pattern emerge from the majority of studies. Several studies suggest that the presence of Cluster B (particularly borderline) pathology is associated with negative outcome (e.g. Johnson et al. 1990; Davis et al. 1992; Fahy and Russell 1993; Fairburn et al. 1993a; Rossiter et al. 1993; Wonderlich et al. 1994; Steiger and Stotland 1996). Related findings suggest that trait anger and impulsivity predict early drop-out from treatment (Fassino et al. 2003), and that negative emotionality, stress reactivity, and alienation predict low treatment-seeking behavior (Perkins et al. 2005). Other studies suggest that perfectionism, obsessive-compulsive PD, and asceticism also predict poor outcome in AN (e.g. Bizeul et al. 2001; Fassino et al. 2001; Rastam et al. 2003; Sutandar-Pinnock et al. 2003) (seeSteinhausen 2002 for a review). It is of note that the two forms of severe personality disturbance identified in subtyping studies – constriction and impulsivity/dysregulation – both seem to be associated with poorer prognosis in RCTs. It is also of note that a trait associated with healthier forms of personality adaptation, ‘self-directedness’, predicts positive outcome (Fassino et al. 2003, 2004).
Comparing the Personality Traits of Patients with an Eating Disorder versus a Dual Diagnosis
Published in Journal of Dual Diagnosis, 2020
Magda Rosińska, Marcela González González, Antoni Grau Touriño, María Soledad Mora Giral
Therefore, considering the previously found differences between DD and ED groups, we hypothesized that the patients with an ED would have higher SD scores compared to patients with DD. Overall, both groups had similar scores throughout the TCI-R and did not show any significant positive or negative correlations when looking at Tables 1 and 2 in the results section. This may be due to the fact of the situation they are currently in, where their activities, meals and schedules are pre-determined and treatment is ongoing. Self-directedness and its multiple subscales will need to be developed further in treatment programs and in studies. A better understanding of how these traits manifest in each individual and what their personal thresholds are for determining purposefulness, resourcefulness or enlightenment, is vital for a sharpened understanding of how treatment should be handled.
Physical performance and physical activity of patients under compulsory forensic psychiatric inpatient care
Published in Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 2020
Henrik Bergman, Thomas Nilsson, Peter Andiné, Alessio Degl’Innocenti, Roland Thomeé, Annelie Gutke
Character maturity was measured by means of two of the character dimensions, Self-Directedness and Cooperativeness, from Cloninger’s Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) (Cloninger, Svrakic, and Przybeck, 1993). Self-Directedness measures how an individual estimates him- or herself with regard to self-understanding, the ability to assume responsibility and comply with conceived goals and values. Cooperativeness covers an individual’s ability to identify with and accept other people, and thus measures how an individual understands and handles his or her social context. Scale scores are provided as t-scores with a mean of 50 and a SD of 10. This instrument has been translated and adapted to Swedish conditions; it is found to be both valid and reliable (Brändström et al., 1998).
Validation of the DSM–5 Alternative Model Personality Disorder Diagnoses in Turkey, Part 1: LEAD Validity and Reliability of the Personality Functioning Ratings
Published in Journal of Personality Assessment, 2018
Ferhan Dereboy, Çiğdem Dereboy, Mehmet Eskin
Aside from being the principal diagnostic tool of the AMPD, the LPFS is an instrument for assessing the global severity of PD as well. In this context, statistically significant and medium to strong correlations of the LPFS components and summary scores with the sum of SCID–II PD symptoms (M r = .34), or with the sum of PD diagnoses (M r = .51) lend support to its validity as a severity indicator of personality pathology. In this respect, our findings are consistent with extant research data despite minor variations between published reports (Few et al., 2013; Hutsebaut et al., 2016; Morey et al., 2013; Zimmermann et al., 2014). Among the four components, the identity component showed the lowest correlations with the SCID–II scores or diagnoses, which reminds us of the concerns over relevance of the LPFS components focusing on individuation in non-Western cultural contexts (Skodol, 2012). It is of interest in this regard that self-directedness, the other LPFS component pertinent to self-functioning, showed correlations comparable to those of the two components pertinent to interpersonal functioning (see Table 3).