Competency and practical judgment.

R Pepper-Smith, W R Harvey, M Silberfeld
{"title":"Competency and practical judgment.","authors":"R Pepper-Smith,&nbsp;W R Harvey,&nbsp;M Silberfeld","doi":"10.1007/BF00539736","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>At least four different frameworks--psychiatric, cognitive, functional and decision-making--are used in the evaluation of competence, all of which remain more or less unrelated in the literature. In the first section of this paper we consider various meanings of \"competence,\" in order to arrive at a definition of the term relevant to the medical and legal setting. Patient or client \"competence,\" we conclude, refers to the practical abilities that individuals employ in pursuing their own autonomous goals in life. We then show how a systematic categorization of these practical abilities--which we call a taxonomy of practical judgment--allows us to show when the traditional frameworks for the evaluation of competence may or may not be useful in the evaluation of a particular competence. In the final section we explore some of the normative considerations underlying the taxonomy. For instance, competence is not only related to intrinsic abilities but to resources available in the community. Here we touch on questions related to the fair distribution of community resources.</p>","PeriodicalId":77444,"journal":{"name":"Theoretical medicine","volume":"17 2","pages":"135-50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/BF00539736","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoretical medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00539736","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

At least four different frameworks--psychiatric, cognitive, functional and decision-making--are used in the evaluation of competence, all of which remain more or less unrelated in the literature. In the first section of this paper we consider various meanings of "competence," in order to arrive at a definition of the term relevant to the medical and legal setting. Patient or client "competence," we conclude, refers to the practical abilities that individuals employ in pursuing their own autonomous goals in life. We then show how a systematic categorization of these practical abilities--which we call a taxonomy of practical judgment--allows us to show when the traditional frameworks for the evaluation of competence may or may not be useful in the evaluation of a particular competence. In the final section we explore some of the normative considerations underlying the taxonomy. For instance, competence is not only related to intrinsic abilities but to resources available in the community. Here we touch on questions related to the fair distribution of community resources.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
能力和实际判断。
至少有四种不同的框架——精神病学、认知、功能和决策——被用于能力评估,所有这些在文献中或多或少是不相关的。在本文的第一部分中,我们考虑了“能力”的各种含义,以便得出与医疗和法律环境相关的术语定义。我们的结论是,患者或客户的“能力”指的是个体在追求自己生活中自主目标时所运用的实际能力。然后,我们展示了对这些实践能力的系统分类——我们称之为实践判断的分类学——如何让我们展示传统的能力评估框架在评估某一特定能力时是否有用。在最后一节中,我们将探讨该分类法的一些规范性考虑。例如,能力不仅与内在能力有关,而且与社区中可用的资源有关。在这里,我们触及与社区资源公平分配有关的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editor's note Sociophysiology as the basic science of psychiatry. Organic unity theory: an integrative mind-body theory for psychiatry. Intersubjectivity in Wittgenstein and Freud: other minds and the foundations of psychiatry. Cultural and historical aspects of eating disorders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1