Search results

1 – 2 of 2
Article
Publication date: 24 November 2021

Kellie Swan, Dianne C. Shanley and Melanie J. Zimmer-Gembeck

The purpose of this paper is to develop a measure of practitioner sense of competence when treating children with disruptive behaviours.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to develop a measure of practitioner sense of competence when treating children with disruptive behaviours.

Design/methodology/approach

Two online surveys were conducted with health, social work and psychology practitioners (n = 113 and n = 239, respectively) working within varied Australian clinical settings. Study 1 developed scale items and conducted an exploratory factor analysis of the initial Professional Sense of Competence Scale (ProSOCS). Study 2 conducted confirmatory factor analysis and tested the construct validity of the scale.

Findings

Study 1 established a three-factor model, which accounted for 56.9% of variance in the ProSOCS items. Study 2 confirmed the three-factor model and considered an alternative unidimensional model. Study 2 demonstrated good convergent validity with measures of knowledge and general sense of competence.

Originality/value

The ProSOCS is a valid and reliable way to measure three subscales of a more global composite score of practitioner sense of competence when treating children with disruptive behaviours. Disruptive behaviour represents one of the most common reasons for child presentation in mental health care settings. Understanding how sense of competence among professionals who treat disruptive behaviours in children relates to their level of training, treatment decisions and outcomes could help to enhance use of evidence-based treatment strategies and complement strategies for measuring competence-based training in post-graduate settings.

Details

Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, vol. 12 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 2042-3896

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 1 January 1978

In the Court of Appeal last summer, when Van Den Berghs and Jurgens Limited (belonging to the Unilever giant organization) sought a reversal of the decision of the trial judge…

186

Abstract

In the Court of Appeal last summer, when Van Den Berghs and Jurgens Limited (belonging to the Unilever giant organization) sought a reversal of the decision of the trial judge that their television advertisements of Stork margarine did not contravene Reg. 9, Margarine Regulations, 1967—an action which their Lordships described as fierce but friendly—there were some piercing criticisms by the Court on the phrasing of the Regulations, which was described as “ridiculous”, “illogical” and as “absurdities”. They also remarked upon the fact that from 1971 to 1975, after the Regulations became operative, and seven years from the date they were made, no complaint from enforcement authorities and officers or the organizations normally consulted during the making of such regulations were made, until the Butter Information Council, protecting the interests of the dairy trade and dairy producers, suggested the long‐standing advertisements of Reg. 9. An example of how the interests of descriptions and uses of the word “butter” infringements of Reg. 9. An example af how the interests of enforcement, consumer protection, &c, are not identical with trade interests, who see in legislation, accepted by the first, as injuring sections of the trade. (There is no evidence that the Butter Information Council was one of the organizations consulted by the MAFF before making the Regulations.) The Independant Broadcasting Authority on receiving the Council's complaint and obtaining legal advice, banned plaintiffs' advertisements and suggested they seek a declaration that the said advertisements did not infringe the Regulations. This they did and were refused such a declaration by the trial judge in the Chancery Division, whereupon they went to the Court of Appeal, and it was here, in the course of a very thorough and searching examination of the question and, in particular, the Margarine Regulations, that His Appellate Lordship made use of the critical phrases we have quoted.

Details

British Food Journal, vol. 80 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0007-070X

1 – 2 of 2