Affiliation:
1. University of North Carolina–Greensboro
Abstract
Purpose
In this article, I question how practitioners can balance the certainty and confidence that they can help their patients with the uncertainty that makes them continually question their beliefs and assumptions.
Method
I compare the mechanisms of science and models of clinical practice that may help practitioners achieve the right balance between total acceptance of the status quo and an open willingness to explore and accept new ideas.
Conclusion
Clinical practice, unlike science, has no independent self-correction mechanism that leads to consensus about best clinical practices. Evidence-based models provide principles and guidelines for clinical practice, but ultimately, clinical decisions may be influenced most by a practitioner’s epistemology (belief systems) and propensity for rational thinking.
Publisher
American Speech Language Hearing Association
Subject
Speech and Hearing,Linguistics and Language,Language and Linguistics
Reference29 articles.
1. Checks and Balances
2. Evidence-based practice in stuttering: Some questions to consider;Bernstein-Ratner N. B.;Journal of Fluency Disorders,2005
3. Evidence-based practice: An examination of its ramifications for the practice of speech-language pathology;Bernstein-Ratner N.;Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,2006
4. Carey B. (2008). Drug rehabilitation or revolving door. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/health/23reha.html
Cited by
25 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献