南山寺文献-音乐治疗中基于数据做出决定-ApolloXY

作品分类:全部文章 2018-11-14

文献|音乐治疗中基于数据做出决定-ApolloXY
点击上方"ApolloXY"关注我们

Data-based Decision Making in Music Therapy
音乐治疗中基于数据做出决定
作者Eric. G. Waldon
翻译:阿波罗翻译组
版权归作者,译文版权归北京阿波罗教育咨询。转载或合作请联系我们
The work of all music therapists involves the collection, synthesis, and analysis of data to meet clinical aims of consumers. Differences exist, however, in how music therapists conceptualize data and the ways in which data are used to make treatment decisions. The purpose of this article is to present a data-based decision making (DBDM) model in music therapy and illustrate its application in early childhood education.
所有音乐治疗师都需要收集,整合,分析数据,以帮助来访者达到治疗目的。但如何将理解数据并基于数据做出治疗决定,人们一直存在不同看法。这篇文章的目的在于展现音乐治疗如何基于数据做出决定,并展示如何将这一模式运用与儿童教育中
Defining DBDM
什么是基于数据做出决策(简称DBDM)
Sometimes referred to as data-driven decision making, DBDM has seen widespread use within education as a means of improving educational outcomes (Sagebrush, 2004). In many schools, these data-driven approaches have been implemented to address accountability regulations specified in No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 Pub.L.No.107-110,§115, Stat. 1425 (2002) and as part of the reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), 20 U.S.C.§ 1400 (2004). More specifically, DBDM has been used to improve the provision of special education services in districts adopting a Response to Intervention (RTI) approach. In RTI, data are collected on all students to inform educational programming prior to special education referral (Greenwood, Bradfield, Kaminski兰新诚 , Linas, Carta, & Nylander, 2011). Consequently, based on a student’s response to “pre-referral” interventions, educational specialists can determine whether a child requires an intensive (i.e., more restrictive) versus a general educational program. However, beyond accountability and student identification, some schools have found that DBDM promotes home-school involvement, improves curriculum, enhances teaching, and assists educators when communicating bestpractices (Sagebrush, 2004).
有时也叫数据推动做出决定。DBDM在教育领域使用广泛,以便提高教学效果。(Sagebrush, 2004)。在许多学校,这些数据推动的方式用于落实2001年《一个孩子不落下法案》(No Child Left Behind (NCLB)) 中的问责条款,与部分《残疾人教育提高法案》的内容。更具体的,部分地区已经通过治疗干预回馈计划(Response to Intervention (RTI) )童振军。RTI计划收集学生数据,采取了这些方案的区域,DBDM被用于提高特殊教育服务。基于学生对转学前干预的翻译,教育专家能够决定孩子是应该接受大众化的教育项目,还是管理严格的项目。但是,除了问责与学生情况,有些学校还发现DMDM可以提高家庭与学习间的互动,改善课程,提高教学水平,推动教育者相互交流有效教学方式(Sagebrush夏河叶航 , 2004)。
While specific models differ, all appear to agree that DBDM is systematic, ongoing, and collaborative.According to Marsh, Pane, and Hamilton (2006), datadriven approaches involve “teachers, principals, and administrators systematically collecting and analyzing various types of data, including input, process, outcome and satisfaction data, to guide a range of decisions to help improve the success of students and schools” (p. 1). In their work for the San Bernardino Unified School District (California), Johns and Patrick (2013) describe DBDM as “an ongoing process of analyzing and evaluating information to inform important education decisions and actions.”
虽然在具体模式上有所差异,大家都同意DBDM具有系统性,重视合作,且正在被应用。根据Marsh, Pane,和Hamilton(2006),基于数据的方法包括(老师,校长,行政主任系统手机,分析各种数据,包括投入,处理,结果和满意率,为一系列决定提供指导,帮助学生和学校成功。
The Heartland Area Education Agency (Heartland AEA, 2007) uses a model based on four data-driven practices: 1) Reviewing; 2) Observing; 3) Interviewing; and 4) Testing. The R.I.O.T. model is particularly advantageous because it encourages multi-method data collection across the decision making process. This approach provides different perspectives on problem-solving, multiple sources of evidence to support decisions, and an examination of convergent and divergent patterns (in educational performance or behavior), which guide intervention planning. A summary of the R.I.O.T. model follows.
Heartland地区教育咨询(Heartland AEA, 2007) 运用四种“基于数据”技法建造了一个模型,主要分四步:1.回顾;2.观察;3.访问;4.测试。R.I.O.T模式优势在于它在决策过程中鼓励通过多种方式收集数据,并研究各模式的异同(教育表现或行为方面)。这些模式是设计治疗干预方案的知道。一下是R.I.OT模式的总结:
(R) Reviewing refers to examining pertinent records, artifacts, archival data, and work samples. In early childhood educational settings, cumulative files, Individualized Family Service Plans (IFSP), Individualized Education Plans (IEP),赵欣培 grade books, attendance records, and medical records may play an important role in determining strengths and needs. Reviewing also involves examining the relevant literature for best-practices with certain populations.
(R)回顾指的是研究相关记录,模型,档案数据,工作样品。在儿童早期教育中,日渐积累的记录,个体家庭服务计划(Individualized Family Service Plans (IFSP)),个体教育计划(IEP),评级数,出勤记录,医疗记录,都在确定项目的长处和需求方面起到重要作用。回顾也包括查阅相关文件,确定与该个体工作时最好的方法。
(I) Interviewingencompasses direct data collection methods whereby information is obtained, formally or informally, from clients, parents, teachers, educational specialists, and medical professionals. Beyond the value of gathering historical information, interviews are inherently helpful to DBDM because informants’ views of the problem and perceptions of improvement can be used to guide treatment.
(I)指访谈。包括直接收集数据,信息由正式或非正式渠道从来访者,父母,老师,教育专家,医学专业人士处获得。除了收集历史信息外,访谈对DBDM的帮助还在于接受访谈者对问题的理解和对提高的看法能被用于指导治疗。
(O) Observing involves directly examining client behaviors across settings, times of the day, and inthe presence of different people. Observations may include descriptions of the environment (e.g., classroom, home) and involve both formal (e.g., time sampling or functional assessment) and informal (e.g., narrative description of a client engaged in play) methods. In addition to providing information about behavior and the influence of environmental factors, observations may be conducted by parents and teachers (informal observations) as a means of gauging a client’s response to interventions; this may provide evidence for transfer of learning in settings not routinely accessed by interventionists.
(O) 指观察。包括直接观察来访者一天内不同时间,不同情景下的反应,还有在有其他人在场时的观察。观察可以包括对环境的描述(比如教师,家中),可以是正式的(比如时间抽烟或功能评估),也可以是非正式的(比如对来访者参与的游戏的描述)。除了提供关于行为和环境影响因素的信息外,观察也可以由父母,老师(非正式观察)进行,以此评估来访者对干预的反应。这也许可以证明在治疗干预不涉及的场景中学习的转换。
Relevance of DBTM to music Therapy
Some may be reluctant to adopt an approach which is rooted around the word “data.” As one of its earliest proponents in music therapy, Hanser (1987) acknowledges this hesitation and explains that a data-based model is a “set of procedures for accurate assessment, efficient planning, and objective evaluation in music therapy” (p. 17). Furthermore, she explains that the approach assists the music therapist by identifying the effectiveness of particular interventions and increases client awareness of progress towards goals. In a later edition of the text, Hanser (1999) described how she applied a data-based sensibility to caring for her newborn daughter. By using this approach, she explained:
基于数据的决策模型与音乐治疗
有些人一听到与“数据”这个词有关的方法,就避之不及。音乐治疗领域,Hanser是最早支持这种方法的人豪门囚情 ,他看出这一领域对数据的不喜,并解释说“数据模型是音乐治疗准确评估,有效设计,与客观评判的前提。”(p.17)。另外,她还解释说这种方法容易发现某种干预手段是否有效,也让来访者对治疗进程更加清晰。Hanser 在这篇论文的修改版中还描述了数据如何赋予她敏感性,让她更好的照顾新生的女儿。以下是她的描述:
By learning her routine, I was not only in better control of our interaction, but I became more confident and relaxed as a mother. I devoted more of my energy to our play, getting to know her through singing, talking, touching, moving and loving her every moment (p. 28).
数据让我了解她的生活习惯。这不仅让我们更容易互动,我做妈妈也觉得更自信,更放松。我把一部分精力花在和她一起玩上,一起唱歌,聊天,触摸,做动作,我更了解她,每分每秒都更爱她。
Applying this same sensibility to a clinical music therapy situation, freed from uncertainty through a data-based structure, therapists can devote more time to building the therapeutic relationship, listening and responding more actively to client needs, and engaging clients musically. Ultimately, implementing treatment in this manner may lead to consistency of intervention and growing the body of evidence-based practice in music therapy.
同样的敏感在治疗中童谣使用。基于数据的结构让治疗师不再受不确定性之苦,因此可以将更多的时间放在建立与来访者的关系,倾听,更积极的呼应来访者的需求,通过音乐将来访者带入治疗过程。最终,这种方式让音乐治疗干预越来越基于事实。
A DBDM Model in Music Therapy
A modified version of John and Patrick’s (2013) definition is used here to define DBDM in music therapy: “Data-based decision making in music therapy involves an ongoing process of collecting, analyzing, and evaluating information to inform important decisions and actions across treatment” (Waldon, 2013). The aim of this reimagined definition is to broaden the applicability of the model beyond educational settings and encourage intentional treatment decision-making using multiple sources of evidence.
音乐治疗中基于数据的决策模型
本篇论文中,我改编了John 和 Patrick (2013)的定义,来说明什么是音乐治疗中的DBDM:音乐治疗中基于数据的决策模型指的是不断对信息进行收集,分析,评估,以便治疗过程中在信息完全充分的情况下做出重要决定(Waldon, 2013)。之所以改写原来的定义,是为了突出基于数据的决策范围应用之广,绝不仅限于教育;也希望鼓励更多治疗师在治疗中有意使用多种渠道收集信息,做出决定。
In particular, the proposed DBDM model in music therapy (see Figure 1) is built on three characteristics described in the educational literature: (a) multi-method data collection (b) ongoing data collection, and (c) cyclical decision making. First, Heartland AEA’s multi-method approach (R.I.O.T.) is deployed across all stages of music therapy treatment. Furthermore, the American Music Therapy Association’s (2012) Standards of Clinical Practice is used to define the various treatment stages:
下面给出的音乐治疗中的DBDM模式是基于教育学文献中描述的三个特征:(a)多渠道收集数据;(b) 不断收集数据;(c) 临床决策。首先,Heartland AEA的多渠道方式 (R.I.O.T.) 在音乐治疗各个阶段均有应用。另外,本文美国音乐治疗协会(2012) 临床做法标准来界定治疗中各个阶段。
Secondly, data collection, analysis, and decision-making are ongoing and, therefore occur over the entire course of treatment. DBDM activities are not confined to a fixed point during treatment. This means, for example, that specific data-based activities such as observing and interviewing may occur at both the Assessment (to ascertain strengths and needs) and Implementation (to monitor client responses) stages. This assures that multiple sources of evidence are being used to guide treatment decisions.
其次,收集,分析数据并据此做出决策是一个连续不断的过程,持续整个治疗过程。也就是说DBDM不是治疗中某个固定的时间点。举例来说,例如观察,访谈等基于数据的治疗活动,既被应用于评估阶段(确定来访者的优势和需求)也被应用于实施阶段(监测来访者反应)。这保证了知道治疗决定的信息来自多种渠道。
Finally, as suggested by Mandinach, Honey, and Light (2006), the process of DBDM is cyclical. This means that data-based procedures at one treatment stage are used to justify advancement to subsequent stages (as represented by descending, rectilinear arrows in Figure 1).
最后,正如Mandinach, Honey 和 Light (2006)提出的,DBDM是一个循环过程蜀山金须奴。也就是说治疗某阶段基于数据的流程能够用来指导下一阶段的进行。
Likewise, data collected and analyzed at later stages may justify returningto an earlier stage (as represented by ascending, curvilinear dashed arrows in Figure 1).
同样的,在后几个阶段收集与分析的数据可以证明前几个阶段决定的合理性。
Moreover, when decisions to either advance or return to stages of treatment are based on multiple sources of evidence, overall decision-making power is strengthened thereby increasing probability of a successful outcome. To further illustrate the use of the approach, the following questions and guidelines are presented to highlight the ways in which DBDM may be applied to early childhood music therapy:
另外,关于推进还是退回治疗某一阶段的决定是基于多种来源的数据。这也加强了治疗师全局决策能力龙魂剑圣 ,提高治疗成功的可能性.下列问题与指导突出了儿童早期音乐治疗中如何运用DBDMM 。下面将进一步说明这种方法的运用。
Referral
1.Review: What information is present within the written referral? To what extent have referral criteria been met (see Hanser, 1999, for example referral criteria)? What research evidence is available which supports the use of music therapy to address the referral problem(s)?
2.Interview: What information can be obtained directly from the referring provider or parent? Identify data that may be absent from the original referral which are important in making a referral acceptance decision.
3.Observe: Can the prospective client be observed prior to accepting the case? Informal observations (in the school cafeteria, playground, or during free time)may be appropriate and warranted prior to referral acceptance.
4.Test: What test scores or measurements (e.g. cognitive or adaptive behavior estimates) are available that may influence the referral decision?
转介
1.回顾:转诊报告包含什么样的信息?转诊标准满足了多少?(见Hanser, 1999比如转诊标准)。有哪些研究成果支持将音乐治疗应用于转诊病例?
2.访谈:从来访者(儿童)或其父母那里能直接获得什么信息?从开始的转诊报告中找出对于接受病例的重要决定。
3.观察:在接收案例前,有机会观察潜在来访者么?非正式观察(在学校的餐厅,操场,课余时间)较为合适,且在接收转诊前是允许的。
4.测试:得到的能影响转诊决定的测试分数或评价是什么样的(认知测试或行为适应测试)
Assessment
1.Review: What records are available and pertinent to the identification of strengths and needs? What work samples (homework or artwork) are available for examination? What does the literature recommend with regard to assessment for this population不破真广?
2.Interview: Who should be interviewed? Can an interview with the client be conducted to directly assess communication, cognitive, motor, and affective functioning?
3.Observe: What types of systematic or descriptive observational techniques will yield the most relevant data? What are the most clinically relevant environments in which to observe the client?
4.Test: What cognitive, behavioral, academic, developmental, or curriculum-based data are available? Are additional test data pending? What music therapy measures (e.g., IMTAP by Baxter, Berghofer, MacEwan, Peters, & Roberts, 2007) may be relevant?
评估
1.回顾:能够取得哪些记录确定来访者的优势和需求。有没有作品取样(家庭作业或艺术作品)以供检查。文献中对这一群体的评估有什么推荐。
2.访谈:接受访谈的是谁。与来访者的访谈能否直接用于评估交流,认知,动力以及感情功能。
3.观察:什么样的系统或描述性观察技法能产出相关数据。从临床角度什么样的环境最适合观察来访者。测试:现在能取得哪些认知数据,行为数据,发展数据,学术研究数据,以及与课程有关的数据?有没有正在处理的测试数据。根据数据,哪些音乐治疗技法比较适合?
Planning
1.Review: In formulating a treatment plan, what does the clinical and research literature reference as best practice (e.g., Humpal & Colwell, 2006)? What current educational and/or clinical goals and objectives are listed (e.g., from IFSPs or IEPs)?Determine whether music therapy is an appropriate method of addressing these needs.
2.Interview: What are the parents’ and client’s thoughts about the proposed plan? To what extent are consultation and/or collaboration with other allied professionals warranted?
3.Observe: What observations are available which support the treatment plan? Does the intervention (timing, length, and intensity) fit the client’s environment? If others will be responsible for administering a component of the treatment, are they capable of carrying out that responsibility?
4.Test:Can baseline data be collected before implementation? Could archival data be used as a proxy for baseline measurement? In the latter case, the use of routine developmental screening tools, curriculum-based measures, and records (disciplinary or academic) may be useful.
计划
1.回顾:制定治疗计划时,根据临床记录和研究文献南山寺 ,哪些是最好的做法(比如 Humpal & Colwell,2006)?有哪些现行的教育与临床对象和目标(可以从IFSPs 或 IEPs中查找)?找出哪些音乐治疗方式能最好的呼应这种需求。
2.访谈:父母与孩子对计划意见如何。其它专业治疗师如何
3.观察:哪些观察到的现象能够支持这项治疗计划。干预(时间点,长度,强度)是否与来访者的环境相符?如果治疗的某些部分由其他人负责,他们能不能顺利完成?
4.测试:在实施前,能不能收集基线数据?文献数据是否能近似的被认为是基线标准。在之后的案例中,运用常规发展扫描工具,基于课程的评估标准,或者记录(学科性的或学术性的),这些手段都有帮助。
Implementation
1.Review: What permanent products or records will be kept to monitor progress? Is there a component of treatment that requires parents or teachers to monitor progress by keeping a record or log?
2.Interview: Aside from clients, parents, or teachers王晴川 , who else may be able to provide pertinent progress monitoring information? What interview information may suggest a need to reformulate the treatment plan or approach?
3.Observe: While providing direct services, what client observations might prompt: (a) a modification of treatment; (b) a reformulation of goals/objectives; or (c) other changes in treatment? If third-party observers (other professionals, parents, or teachers) are involved in collecting progress-monitoring data, what training is needed?
4.Test: What specific measures (i.e., behavior counts, inventories, or developmental tools) are being used to monitor progress? Are data being collected consistently? Do these measures occur naturally in the client’s educational or home environment? When possible, use measures that fit the ecology of the client’s environment. In other words, avoid developing a new system of measurement when an appropriate system already exists.
实施
1.回顾:检测治疗进程是,有哪些成果或记录可以永久保留?治疗有没有那一部分要求父母或老师通过记录或测试仪检测治疗进程。
2.访谈:除了来访者,父母,老师之外,还有谁能提供与检测进程相关的信息?还有那些治疗信息显示需要重新安排治疗计划或改变治疗手段。
3.观察:除了提供直接服务,来访者观察还能促进(a) 治疗方案调整;(b) 重新制定目的目标;(c)治疗方案有无其它变化?如果第三方观察者(其它治疗师,父母长孙无垢,老师)参与收集进程检测数据,他们需要什么样的训练。
4.测试:使用了那些具体的方法(比如:特定行为数量,行为库,发展心理学工具)检测进程。数据收集方式是否具有连续性。这些方法是佛在来访者的教育背景或家庭背景中自然出现的。可能时,运用适合来访者背景的方法。也就是活,如果现有的治疗系统合适,不要发展新系统。
Termination
1.Review: What evidence suggests that termination is appropriate? What instructions or follow-up materials will be included as part of an after-care or follow-up plan?
2.Interview: What are the client’s, parents’, or teacher’s views about termination? to what extent have treatment expectations been met?
3.Observe: What observations are relevant to either discontinuing treatment or changing the level of service? If generalization was a goal, to what extent was that met?
4.Test: What quantitative data are available supporting the discontinuation or change in treatment?
结束
1.回顾:哪些证据显示可以结束治疗?治疗师将提供那指导或后续材料作为愈后关怀(after-care)或后续计划?
2.访谈:来访者的父母和老师对结束治疗看法如何。他们对治疗的期待有点多少被满足了?
3.观察:哪些观察结果促使治疗师中断治疗或改变服务等级。如果总结概括是治疗目标。目标在多大程度上被实现了。
4.测试:那些量化数据支持结束或改变治疗征服堡垒 。
Summary
The model presented is one way in which DBDM can be applied in music therapy. While the example above illustrated its application in early childhood education, the DBDM paradigm has wider application across populations and settings in music therapy. The strengths of the approach come from the use of multiple data collection methods, ongoing data-based strategies across treatment stages, and using data to drive all treatment decisions. Ultimately, the objective of DBDM is to improve outcomes for clients while elevating the standard of care in music therapy.
总结
上述模式只是在音乐治疗中运用DBDM中的一例。上面的例子只展示了如何在儿童早期教育中应用DBDM, 这种音乐治疗范式却能广泛运用于各种人群与各种环境。这种方法的优势在于,运用多种方式收集数据,贯穿于治疗各阶段的连续数据收集,运用数据推动治疗决策。最终,DBDM的目的是既让音乐治疗评估有标准可循,又提高它对来访者的效果。
(全文完)扫码入群及时获取创艺疗育讯息勾搭更多小伙伴

联系我们
15120053223辛欣
意见反馈