> I can feel some more late nights ahead. -------------------------------------------------------
I only have rare opportunities to help out in the TiddlyVerse - I am usually the recipient of Eric's, FND's and others' kind help I put your questions into the my questionnaire TW [1] - I hope they might be of some help to you or anyone else. Psychology, Linking, Tags and TiddlyWiki ------------------------------------------------------- Interesting to be made aware of Wilfred Bion. I'll have a look at his stuff. Alex [1] http://r.a.hough.googlepages.com/StrengthsandDifficultiesQuestionnai.html 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 > > > -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
