Judge s taking Attac hme nt and Psyc hopathology Andr e a L - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Judge s taking “Attac hme nt and Psyc hopathology”

Andr e a L andini & Giuliana F lor it (Italy)

An intr

• duc tion to DMM in Milano
• T

wo ho no ra ry judg e s in the Mino rs Co urt in Mila no invite d a ll the ir c o lle a g ue s (b o th judg e s a nd ho no ra ry judg e s fro m he lping pro fe ssio ns) to ta ke a 3-da y “Atta c hme nt a nd Psyc ho pa tho lo g y” c o urse .

• Hig h inte re st, b ut ha rd fo r the judg e s to e xtric a te

the mse lve s fro m he a ring s fo r 3 c o nse c utive da ys

About 15 judge s atte nd the c our se

• T

he ir ma in inte re st wa s to unde rsta nd mo re a b o ut the psyc ho lo g ic a l re po rts, e spe c ia lly:

• te c hnic a l la ng ua g e
• me a ning s b e hind la b e ls (o fte n unre la te d to spe c ific
• b se rva tio ns)
• e va lua tio n c rite ria

Cour se not e spe c ially tailor e d to judge s

• Just e mpha sizing c o nc e pts like :
• Atta c hme nt fig ure s a re no t inte rc ha ng e a b le
• Atta c hme nts a re o rg a nize d in the first ye a r o f life
• e tc .
• (T

he y e ve n to o k the multiple c ho ic e 72-q ue stio ns q ue stio nna ire a t the e nd!)

Dur ing the c our se

• Afte r wa tc hing the g ro up o f psyc ho lo g ists

unde re stima te the dya dic sync hro ny o f a DS=14 CARE

• I

nde x vide o , o ne judg e wo nde re d:

“Ho w re lia b le ha ve b e e n the ne g a tive re po rts I ha ve re c e ive d in the la st fe w de c a de s? ”

Dur ing the c our se

• I

n info rma l c o nve rsa tio ns we re c o mme nde d tha t the judg e s re q ue st mo re c la rity fro m the a utho rs o f the re po rts, in te rms o f:

• Ho w the y o b ta ine d the ir info rma tio n (fo rma l o r

info rma l o b se rva tio ns)

• T

he pro c e ss tha t le d to the sta te d c o nc lusio ns

Afte r the c our se

• We inte rvie we d info rma lly 4 o f the judg e s a b o ut

wha t the y le a rne d fro m A&P.

What was le ar ne d by the judge s

• Ba sic c o nc e pts (se c ure / a nxio us a tta c hme nt,

diffe re nt stra te g ie s, e tc ) o fte n q uo te d b y e xpe rts, b ut witho ut a de finitio n pro vide d in the re po rts

• Ho w o b se rva tio na l a sse ssme nts wo rk a nd ho w

yo u ta ke info rma tio n fro m the m)

What was le ar ne d by the judge s

• Mo re c rite ria to e va lua te the re po rts’

c o nc lusio ns

• I

n turn, whe n to a pply mo re o r le ss c a utio n in the de c isio ns b a se d o n the m

What the judge s did

• I

n the ir q ue stio ns, mo re fre q ue nt e xplic it re q ue sts to use o b se rva tio na l a sse ssme nts

• Mo re re q ue sts fo r furthe r a sse ssme nts
• I

n re spo nse to a re c e nt DMM re po rt, e xpre sse d surprise fo r the tra nspa re nc y o f the pro c e ss o f

• b se rva tio n a nd e va lua tio n.

What we le ar ne d

• T

he e ffo rt to disse mina te info rma tio n a b o ut the I ASA c o urt pro to c o l is like ly to pa y o ff;

• Disse mina tio n must g o b e yo nd sc ie ntific

pub lic a tio n;

• L

a ng ua g e a nd c o mmunic a tio n stra te g ie s a ppro pria te fo r la w pe rso nne l, a dministra to rs a nd po lic y ma ke rs a re ne e de d.

T hank you