Thanks, Alex. If I can get my head around the script I will try to
adapt your Likert scales, but I doubt I have the skills. I can feel
some more late nights ahead. The final point in your comment is
particularly relevant and interesting to me - about the APPLIED side
of TW's as opposed to (or //alongside//, rather) the technical
developments that mostly leave me scratching my head at present
(though I have high hopes...)
I have been playing with the content of my TiddlyWiki manual for a
long time now, but certainly would not claim any specific competencies
(at all!) in the programming side of things; rather, it is the
APPLICATION of this elegantly different writing format that fascinates
me, and what it can bring to real life tasks, like running a team who
are trying to do a complex set of tasks better, and in a more joined-
up way.
I am fascinated in the way that TW works not just as an *analytical*
tool (splitting a complex area up into branches/tags, much as a 'mind
map' can do on paper) but that simultaneously it works as an
*integrative* tool (linking distant branches/twigs) so that I
sometimes envisage the web of information in a TW as being 3-
dimensional: Tags spreading out over the surface of a sphere, Links
diving through the core to their targets, though of course this is too
simple in reality.
Hence I am very interested in rather abstract notions such as "What,
precisely (semantically and pragmatically, that is), is a link, and a
tag?" and "what does non-linearity offer to the reader and writer that
more conventional linear text forms lack? - and what do we risk losing
by not having a linear statement of an argument?" Clearly this is a
Both-And rather than an Either-Or situation. No doubt others have
thought long and hard about these questions already, and I would be
most interested if there are any pointers to where I can connect up
with this conversation.
There is a seminal paper (1959) in the field of psychoanalysis by a
British analyst called Wilfred Bion titled "Attacks on Linking", and
to summarise this very complex and dense piece of writing, he is
saying that unconscious processes (which might be construed as having
a "vested interest" in remaining unconscious) "conspire" to keep apart
material that could and probably "should" be linked in the mind
("Don't bore me with the facts, I like my story the way it is!"). I
think this goes for a great deal of the different schools of
psychology and psychotherapy, as well as the neurosciences, which
until recently have ploughed surprisingly separate furrows, without
paying very much attention to links that are (or almost certainly
should be) present. A generous understanding of this is that
researchers have been focussed on their own skills and areas of
interests, and that the branches of the "tree of knowledge" have
extended out so quickly over the past 100years that common fruits on
separate twigs have been easily overlooked, not least because the
technology to suggest, explore and make links between, say, cognitive-
behavioural theories and those of psychoanalysis, have been lacking.
On the other hand, most of us would also recognise that (mainly
unconscious) things like envy, empire-building and straightforward
protectionism (academic and economic) have played their part, too.
This is very much the theoretical position that IMP (Integrative
Multimodal Practice - the therapeutic stance that we are manualizing
in TW) tries to take - that paying more conscious attention to the
links between theories and practical applications is very powerful in
terms of providing a better integrated (and thereby *integrative* for
the poor client and family) service. In IMP we do that via two
significant routes; firstly by training keyworkers in the basics of a
whole range of evidence-based interventions (that have traditionally
been "owned" by different professional groups), and secondly by using
TW as the manualization allowing/promoting/sustaining this linking,
and encouraging local team edits to the manual to create a marriage of
"top-down" expert material with "bottom-up" local expertise.
To get back to the point of TiddlyWiki (given that this is the TW
group!) there seem to be features embedded within TW that suit it
quite uniquely for the job:
- its self-contained-ness, so that there can be clear editorial
control over content, rather than a free-for-all.
- the ease of basic editing so that non-experts can adopt it ...even
technophobes (perhaps a little way to go to fully realise this!)
- the lack of expensive additional (desk- or server-bound) software
that any health service would baulk at paying for/maintaining.
- the size of a tiddler; by which I mean that a tiddler is "bite-
sized" rather than a full essay, and this makes the document
approachable from a user's perspective.
I have strayed from the original topic of Forms, and have changed the
title to reflect this.
Best,
Dickon
On Apr 18, 9:13 am, Alex Hough <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dickton,
>
> I make no claim for the questions on the questionnaire. That credit
> goes to Tudor Rickards [1]. The questions are part of his "Team Factor
> Inventory" for creative teams, documented in Handbook for Creative
> Team Leaders [2] The TW is a work in progress for the teaching of
> creativity and creative leadership, and helping creativity and
> creative leadership in organisations.
>
> Credit for the TW plugings: Eric and Udo for the story plugin and Udo
> for the forms and for each tiddler.
>
> You are welcome to change the questions and adapt the TW for your own use.
>
> If anyone has any ideas / suggestions on how to make the questionnaire
> [3] more user friendly and appear more attractive, I would be very
> interested to read them.
>
> Finally, thanks for the compliment on a my TW! It's sometimes heavy
> going being a TiddlyAdvocate in a 'real' world where the mention of a
> tiddler raises eyebrows.
>
> Alex
>
> [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudor_Rickards
> [2]Rickards, T. & Moger, S., 1999. Handbook for Creative Team Leaders,
> Gower Publishing Company.
> Amazon.com Link. Available at:http://www.amazon.com/dp/0566080516
> [Accessed January 8, 2009].
> [3] ttp://r.a.hough.googlepages.com/TFI.html
>
> 2009/4/17 dickon <[email protected]>:
>
>
>
>
>
> > That is great, Alex. The Likert scale is exactly the kind of thing I
> > would need to use. Your questionnaire is very thought-provoking too,
> > and I like the way it generates instant feedback with traffic-light
> > gradings!
>
> > Thanks,
>
> > Dickon
>
> > On Apr 17, 10:59 am, Alex Hough <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Hi Dickton
>
> >> I am working on two quesionaires, the most complete and most simple is
> >> on the web [1]
> >> Its work in development.
>
> >> The second is more 'in development but more complex. The order of the
> >> questions depends on previous answers. I am working with a proper IT
> >> professional using an method which focuses on user involovement. I can
> >> show you this one as well in due course, but there is some bugs in the
> >> system at the moment.
>
> >> Best Wishes
> >> Alex
> >> [1]http://r.a.hough.googlepages.com/TFI.html
> >> ps. coincidentally I am working in mental health. another of my TW
> >> projects is on a NHS creativity in mental health project.
>
> >>http://r.a.hough.googlepages.com/TFI.html
>
> >> 2009/4/16 dickon <[email protected]>:
>
> >> > Thankyou Mark. My HTML is definitely not up to this job, but at least
> >> > I have some pointers of where to head. Entirely see your point about
> >> > being both Nervous and Not nervous - both from an existential and a
> >> > programming perspective!
>
> >> > Best,
>
> >> > Dickon
>
> >> > On 16 Apr, 17:54, "Mark S." <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> Following some help from Eric Shulman, I wrote myself a routine that
> >> >> collects information from an HTML form, runs it through a format
> >> >> string, and places it somewhere inside of an existing tiddler.
>
> >> >> This kind of routine could probably be modified to create a brand new
> >> >> tiddler with questionnaire results. I haven't posted it anywhere
> >> >> (except once somewhere in this forum) but I could again if there is
> >> >> interest.
>
> >> >> You would have to rewrite your quiz as a real HTML form, though. You
> >> >> use checkboxes throughout, but radio buttons would be more
> >> >> appropriate. As it is, someone could be simultaneously Nervous and
> >> >> Certainly Not Nervous. You know, I've had days like that.
>
> >> >> In order to be useful for later processing, you would want to think
> >> >> about how the results are organized. I'm guessing that putting each
> >> >> answer into a slice would be most appropriate
>
> >> >> q1: 1 <answer is 1 to 3>
> >> >> q2: 3
> >> >> ...
>
> >> >> In any event, the final results need to be in some format that TW can
> >> >> easily grab. There are also sections, data fields and the <data>
> >> >> plugin, but to me this seems most easy to edit any mistakes.
>
> >> >> And of course, each questionnaire would be tagged as "SDQResults" (or
> >> >> something).
>
> >> >> Then you could write, or have written a routine in a tiddler that
> >> >> would process each tiddler, and apply whatever process you want
> >> >> (sorry, I didn't look at your PDF).
>
> >> >> Just some thoughts,
>
> >> >> -- Mark
>
> >> >> On Apr 15, 4:11 pm, dickon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> > Hi. following on from my intro about the TiddlyManual project the
> >> >> > other day (novel manualization of psychiatry/psychotherapy
> >> >> > interventions), I have two more specific and technical questions.
>
> >> >> > First, I'd like to be able to make forms out of a tiddler so that the
> >> >> > user can type information straight in without having to switch to the
> >> >> > edit mode (whcih would scare the most technophobic therapists!) - I am
> >> >> > sure this can be done, but I can't work it out - sorry.
>
> >> >> > Then, I'd like to be able to sort out a simple algorithm to "score" a
> >> >> > particular questionnaire called the SDQ (Strengths and difficulties
> >> >> > Questionnaire -http://www.sdqinfo.com/questionnaires/english/c3.pdf).
> >> >> > This is a very simple and mercifully short questionnaire that is
> >> >> > surprisingly valid at highlighting clinical vulnerability in children,
> >> >> > and has been tried out on zillions of children worldwide; it also
> >> >> > seems to pick up clinically-useful CHANGE over time (helping us
> >> >> > measure whether we are doing any good or not).
>
> >> >> > The Q's are divided into a number of sub-sets that address specific
> >> >> > symptom areas (Emotional symptoms, Conduct problems, Hyperactivity,
> >> >> > Peer problems, and Pro-social features) and each Question is scored
> >> >> > Not, Somewhat or Certainly true... so it is a question of assigning
> >> >> > certain scores to certain tick-boxes (see the scoring system
> >> >> > here:http://www.sdqinfo.com/ScoreSheets/e2.pdf) , and also assigning
> >> >> > certain sets of tick-boxes to the different symptom areas. Ideally
> >> >> > I'd generate a score at the end that consists of sub-scores within
> >> >> > each of the symptom areas mentioned above.
>
> >> >> > I can make the boxes
> >> >> > (seehttp://burningchrome.com:8090/bags/IMP/tiddlers.wiki
> >> >> > and search SDQ to see where I've got to...), but getting into the
> >> >> > further details required to generate a score defeats me!
>
> >> >> > Best wishes,
>
> >> >> > Dickon Bevington
>
> >> --
> >> t: 0161 442 2202
> >> m: 0781 372 50 17
> >> skype: alexhough
> >> delicious: alexhough
>
> --
> t: 0161 442 2202
> m: 0781 372 50 17
> skype: alexhough
> delicious: alexhough
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/TiddlyWiki?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
