Teenage Depression > Personal Values > Personal Multi-screening Inventory > A Human Strength and Problem Theory
|
|
|
|
|
A Human Strength and Problem TheoryHuman Strength and Problem Theory
For purposes of description we shall consider the theory of molecular motion as a
micro-theory while a theory about the causes of heat and heat transfer would be regarded as a macro-theory (we recognize that physicists may complain of our abuse of thermodynamics). In this context, the micro-theory is useful in studying the behaviour of thermometers. By analogy with the thermometer, the basic elements of a micro-theory are presented for the definition and measurement of strengths in living. Such a theory will be useful for understanding the theoretical orientation of the Personal Multi Screening Inventory and how it functions as a measurement device. No effort is made to develop or defend a macro-theory about the cause or origin of personal, emotional, interpersonal, spiritual and physical problems and strengths. A micro-theory about personal, emotional, interpersonal, spiritual and physical strengths and problems is best created and understood within the context of first describing the basic approach to measurement that was used in the development of the PMSI. The approach is straightforward and consists of little more than asking respondents to report the relative frequency of occurrence of the behaviour, affect, or perception that is represented by the content of a specific PMSI item. For example, one of the items on the achievement subscale states, "I have willpower", and the respondent is asked to report how frequently that behaviour occurs on a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 = Never and 7 = Always. The item scores obtained from the items comprising the achievement subscale are summed and transformed in order to obtain a subscale total score that ranges from 0 to 100. If the obtained achievement subscale score is both reliable and valid, we can claim that we have measured something called "achievement" but we cannot yet claim that we have measured a personal adjustment of strength. The following micro-theory about human strengths provides a basis for making the claim that we have measured a human strength. The core ingredients of the micro-theory of human strengths and problems consist of two fundamental axioms. The first axiom of this micro-theory states that human strengths and problems do not exist until someone defines them. The second axiom states that all human strengths and problems are defined in terms of a value base. There are two major implications of these axioms that always must be kept in mind when using the PMSI or similar instruments to evaluate strengths and problems in living. The first is that any conclusion about the presence of any personal, emotional, interpersonal, spiritual and physical functioning strength or problem are always based on the personal values position of the person who draws the conclusion. That is, a strength/problem does not exist until someone defines it and strengths/problems are always defined in terms of someone's value position. This means that it is entirely possible, and not at all uncommon, for a practitioner to conclude that a client has a strength in some well defined area of functioning but the client will claim otherwise. Discrepancies of this nature can arise for possibly two reasons. First, the practitioner and client may be using different data or the assessment scale is not reliable and valid. The second reason for such discrepancies can arise from the fact that the practitioner and the client are using different value positions to draw conclusions about the presence of a strength or problem in personal, emotional, interpersonal, spiritual and physical functioning. It is important to understand the latter difficulty that can be illustrated with a familiar example. It is not uncommon for a traffic court to refer someone to a practitioner for the treatment of alcohol abuse which came to the court's attention because of driving a vehicle while intoxicated. The practitioner may administer the Index of Alcohol and Drug use to the client and obtain a high score on this Index. Under these circumstances the practitioner will conclude that the client has a drinking problem - a conclusion similar to the court’s conclusion which was the basis for the referral in the first place. The client, on the other hand, may strongly assert that he or she does not have a drinking problem and is therefore seeking help only because it was mandated by the court as a way to avoid stiff penalties. The facts in this case are indisputable but the conclusions differ because the client and the practitioner are evaluating the facts from different value positions. |