Judge s taking “Attac hme nt and Psyc hopathology” Andr e a L andini & Giuliana F lor it (Italy)
An intr oduc 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 o 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 o 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
Recommend
More recommend
