No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 August 2021
Psychologically, the question of profession-specific instruments and tools is not trivial. A profession is characterized by specific knowledge. Knowledge is regarded as part of professional competencies: What is done? How is something done? Why is something done? Knowledge and skills are acquired through specific training and continuing education.
Professional knowledge is represented in a specific language. In addition, standards and regulations apply to differentiate it from other professions. Different languages and special professional regulations make cooperation more difficult. These obstacles must be overcome.
Instruments stand for professional identity. Competence-based tools are subject to professional legal regulations (e.g. following standards defined by EuroPsy Certificate of EFPA), ethical guidelines of the profession (professional ethics according to EFPA Meta-Code of Ethics) and external guidelines for professional practice (e.g. national and EU regulations). This ensures patient safety through Europe-wide standards. The investigation of profession-specific profiles and their modification, also under the conditions of the pandemic, becomes important.
Professional instruments are protected by professional political boundaries. Profession-specific profiles are also an invitation to “coopetition”. While differentiation tends to lead to complementary mission fulfillment in practice, openness leads to a “spill-over of skills” in interdisciplinary practice. Alignment of competence profiles and cooperation are encouraged.
The future certainly lies in closer cooperation between the professions. The search for fundamental common ground (consilience), for effective and sustainable interventions (efficiency) and the demand for evidence-based practice (according to common ethical standards) place the well-founded benefit of an instrument for clients above any other interests.
No significant relationships.
You have
Access
Open access
To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.
To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.
To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.