Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Naturalistic decision-making frameworks in multiprofessional assessment of early childhood disability

By Paul Alphonse Bartolo

Abstract

Young children with complex developmental difficulties are often referred for\ud assessment by multiprofessional groups run by health or education services.\ud The purpose of this research is to identify and describe the frameworks within\ud which such groups make their judgements and decisions in real work settings.\ud This study adopted an exploratory, multiple-case research design. It involved\ud two tertiary multiprofessional groups in London. Each assessed two preschool\ud children whose difficulties were suspected to lie within the autistic spectrum.\ud One group consisted of a paediatric senior registrar, a clinical psychologist and\ud a speech therapist working within a neurodisability centre attached to a\ud hospital (Site M); the other group was multi-agency, managed by an\ud Educational Psychology Service and included educational psychologists, a\ud psychotherapist and the deputy head of a special school (Site E). Each child\ud was assessed by all the professionals simultaneously in the presence of the\ud parents over a morning session. All discussions were audio-recorded. Postassessment\ud interviews were held with each participant. Data were subjected\ud to verbal protocol analysis and discourse and conversation analysis.\ud The major finding of the study was that professionals made use of four types\ud of interlinked decision-making frameworks, activated either concurrently or in\ud close alternation. Firstly, a common procedural framework included\ud hypothesis testing and diagnosis carried out in three cycles of decision\ud making, with varying characteristics related to the different institutional\ud contexts of each Site. Secondly, knowledge frameworks were mainly within\ud the 'disease' model at Site M, and the 'psychodynamic' and 'behavioural'\ud models at Site E. Thirdly, goal structures were related to which client and\ud purpose each assessment was intended to serve. Finally, negotiation\ud frameworks consisted of inter-professional collaboration and power-game\ud structures, and professional-parent interaction structures for negotiating the\ud bad news. These findings have implications for research on decision making\ud in assessment of children with disability, as well as for professional practice\ud and training

Year: 1999
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.ioe.ac.uk.oai2:6610

Suggested articles


To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.