Volume 4, Issue 2-1, April 2016, Page: 29-36
A Measuring Instrument for Ethical Sensitivity in the Therapeutic Sciences
Alida Naudé, Centre for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
Juan Bornman, Centre for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
Received: Dec. 21, 2015;       Accepted: Dec. 23, 2015;       Published: May 13, 2016
DOI: 10.11648/j.hss.s.2016040201.15      View  3692      Downloads  130
Abstract
An emerging literature in behavioural ethics conceptualized ethical sensitivity as a critical part of the decision making process. Ethical sensitivity together with an understanding of the client, their needs, emotions and circumstances is fundamental to an effective therapeutic relationship and competent practice. This study appears to be the first to empirically measure this concept in decision making related to the therapeutic sciences, including audiology, occupational therapy, physiotherapy and speech-language therapy. A multidisciplinary measure of ethical sensitivity is developed and consists of 12 vignettes that represent clinically relevant ethical issues related to these four professions. The study followed a two-phase, sequential mixed-methods research approach. Phase 1, the qualitative stage, focused on developing a measuring instrument by means of a systematic review of the following: ethical codes of conduct; focus group discussions; individual in-depth interviews; an expert panel review; and public complaints websites. Phase 2, the quantitative stage, focused on implementing and evaluating the measuring instrument. One hundred participants representing the four professions completed the instrument. Participants’ overall scores on the Measuring Instrument for Ethical Sensitivity in the Therapeutic sciences (MIEST) were comparable for all four professions, confirming the multidisciplinary usability of the instrument. Participants were inclined to make grounded Beneficence centred decisions. Participants were particularly sensitive about the impact of the therapist’s actions on the individual client, and sometimes overlooked their duty to the community. The MIEST can be used to assess the ethical sensitivity of student therapists (and possibly qualified therapists) and describe the stage of their ethical sensitivity development throughout the course of their professional development. The constructed vignettes make the MIEST appropriate for use in problem-based learning programmes.
Keywords
Ethical Principle, Ethical Sensitivity, Therapist, Perspective Taking, Beneficence
To cite this article
Alida Naudé, Juan Bornman, A Measuring Instrument for Ethical Sensitivity in the Therapeutic Sciences, Humanities and Social Sciences. Special Issue: Ethical Sensitivity: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Vol. 4, No. 2-1, 2016, pp. 29-36. doi: 10.11648/j.hss.s.2016040201.15
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
Kushner H. Living a life that matters: resloving the conflict between conscience and success. New York: Knopf; 2001.
[2]
Wittmer D. Developing a behavioral model for ethical decision making in organizations: conceptual and empirical research. In: Frederickson GH, Ghere RK, editors. Ethics in public management. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc; 2005. p. 49–69.
[3]
Rest J. Moral development: advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger; 1986.
[4]
Weaver W. Ethical sensitivity: state of knowledge and needs for further research. Nurs Ethics. 2007; 14 (2): 141–55.
[5]
Crick N, Dodge K. A review and reformulation of social information processing in children’s social adjustment. Psychol Bull. 1994; 115: 74–101.
[6]
Ledoux J. The emotional brain. New York: Simon Schuster; 1996.
[7]
Narvaez D. Moral perception: a new construct? Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New York; 1996.
[8]
Narvaez D, Endicott L. Ethical sensitivity: nurturing character in the classroom. Notre Dame, Indiana: Alliance for catholic education press; 2009.
[9]
Tiatorio A. Ethics workbook. Massachusetts: EthicsinEducation; 1999.
[10]
Naudé AM, Bornman J. A systematic review of ethics knowledge in audiology (1980-2010). Am J Audiol [Internet]. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; 2014 Jun 1 [cited 2014 Nov 5]; 23 (2): 151–7. Available from: http://aja.pubs.asha.org/article.aspx?articleid=1859494.
[11]
Swisher LL. Research Report A Retrospective Analysis of Ethics. Phys Ther J Am Phys Ther Assoc. 2002; 82: 692–706.
[12]
Naudé AM. Exploring ethical sensitivity in the South African context: developing and implementing a measure in the therapeutic sciences. University of Pretoria; 2015.
[13]
Sparks JR, Hunt S. Marketing researcer ethical sensitivity: conceptualization, measurement and exploratory investigation. J Mark. 1998; 62: 92–109.
[14]
Agarwal J, Malloy D. An integrated model of ethical decision-making: a proposed pedagogical framework for a marketing ethics curriculum. Teach Bus Ethics. 2002; 6 (2): 245–68.
[15]
Bennett M. Towards ethnorelativism: a developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In: Paige R, editor. Education for the intercultural experience. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural press; 1993.
[16]
Rest J. Morality. In: Flavell J, Markman E, editors. Handbook of child psychology. 4th ed. New York: John Wiley; 1983. p. 556–629.
[17]
Harasym P, Tsai T, Munshi F. Is problem-based learning an ideal format for developing ethical decision skills? Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2013; 29 (10): 523–9.
Browse journals by subject