We have located links that may give you full text access.
A Pilot Study on Professional Documentation: Do We Write From a Strengths Perspective?
American Journal of Speech-language Pathology 2017 August 16
Purpose: There is growing evidence supporting the use of strengths-based practices when serving families. The purpose of this study was to examine the use of strengths-based approaches in the context of written professional documentation. We specifically explored whether or not interdisciplinary clinicians in one university-based medical center clinic write from a strengths perspective (e.g., writing focuses on abilities rather than on deficits) when documenting child behavior in autism diagnostic clinics.
Method: We gathered narrative-based writing samples (a total of 299 phrases) from 20 patient reports. Using a coding system developed by the research team (intraclass correlation coefficient = .801 on final definitions and coding system), we analyzed the extent to which interdisciplinary clinicians included strengths-based language (e.g., language that emphasizes a person's strengths rather than limitations) in their written documentation. An independent researcher coded a random sample (20% of entire sample) of the data to document reliability of the coded data (97% interrater agreement).
Results: Our findings indicated that clinicians in our study used deficit-based language significantly more than neutral and strengths-based language in written documentation.
Conclusion: This preliminary evidence suggests a need to reflect upon our own understanding of strengths-based practices and the way professionals write about children in clinical documentation.
Method: We gathered narrative-based writing samples (a total of 299 phrases) from 20 patient reports. Using a coding system developed by the research team (intraclass correlation coefficient = .801 on final definitions and coding system), we analyzed the extent to which interdisciplinary clinicians included strengths-based language (e.g., language that emphasizes a person's strengths rather than limitations) in their written documentation. An independent researcher coded a random sample (20% of entire sample) of the data to document reliability of the coded data (97% interrater agreement).
Results: Our findings indicated that clinicians in our study used deficit-based language significantly more than neutral and strengths-based language in written documentation.
Conclusion: This preliminary evidence suggests a need to reflect upon our own understanding of strengths-based practices and the way professionals write about children in clinical documentation.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app