Critical Appraisal Paper of the Results a. Complete a theoretical evaluation self-test ( results are submitted) https://web.pdx.edu/~dcoleman/test.html b. ask your college to do the same. (resultas are submitted). c. Compare and contrast results in a face-to-face conversation. Write about your conversation and your own thoughts following this discussion. Use the rubric to organize your paper and to account for all required items. Your paper will be two (2) pages (maximum), Please note this paper should solely discuss theory and not intervention. Papers discussing intervention will be returned ungraded. d. When writing the paper, focus only on your top match and your co-worker’s top match (for instance: cognitive vs. pragmatic); define both with a cited academic source. e. There is no need to restate your scores on each nor the standard deviation. Keep it simple. Refer the reader to the table. f. Discuss the similarities and differences in your theoretical orientations (cognitive theory versus biological theory, for instance). If you scored highest in the same area, compare and contrast your understanding of the theory or how it informs your understanding of human behavior and/or functioning. If you both earned the highest rating for cognitive theory, for instance, you can also discuss how your supervisor may be of the psychobiological cognitive orientation, and you adhere strictly to the stressor vulnerability model. g. Discuss how well your top match fits in your working setting (Psychiatric Hospital) (doing group therapy and individual bio-psycho-social assessments). Look at their mission statement (Mission- To build the health of the community by providing a single, high standard of quality care for the residents.) h. Discuss how well your top match fits with Psychiatric Hospital framework (your current perspective on working with clients and guiding them to problem resolution). Evaluate how it matches your usual way of practicing or thinking about human behavior/problem solving, the population you serve (Psychiatric Hospital- using Recovery principles and Motivational interviewing) and similar issues of the goodness of fit. i. Critical analysis is the focus and if you include only a description without analysis you will not have completed the assignment. j. Include proper APA citations for the TEST, any theories, and any other concepts that are not of your own creation. Scores to compare INTERPRETING YOUR RESULTS SUBSCALE YOUR SCORE COWORKER’S SCORE SAMPLE OF 130 mean (SD) Psychodynamic 25 23 26.2 (5.2) Biological 19 23 14.6 (4.0) Family 18 19 18.2 (4.0) Ecosystems ?25 23 24.2 (2.6) Cognitive ?29 24 25 (4.5) Pragmatic ?20 22 20.1 (5.7) Humanistic ?12 18 10.4 (2.4) INTERPRETING YOUR SCORE: The subscales used to add up your scores (psychodynamic, biological, etc) are derived from a factor analysis of the responses of 130 subjects. See below for sample information. Some participants have found it helpful to refer back to their responses to individual items to see if there are parts of a theory they tend to agree with more or less. The column, "Sample of 130", provides the means and standard deviations of the sample of 130 community clinicians. Since these are from one selectively drawn sample, they provide a reference point but are not "norms". (These are means of the summed scale scores, not standarized to the 1 item level). To aid you in an interpretation of the mean +/- 1 standard deviation would include 68% of the sample, and +/- 2 standard deviations would include 95% of the sample. One caution is that the reliability of the scale is adequate to discriminate group differences, but not individual differences. These scores should be used to stimulate reflection, but not as precise measurements of individual theoretical orientation. Sample Information: (n=130) Fifty-six (43%) of the subjects were MSW students, and 74 (57%) were practicing clinicians. Ninety-three (72%) were social work associated (students and practitioners) and 37 (28%) were from the other mental health professions. The average age of subjects was 35 (sd=13.7). The average practice experience of practictioners was 13.8 years (sd=11.2).