RE: (no subject)

[Elka]

Each of these are names used to organize information.  Theory and paradigms are universally used throughout the scientific community.  FOR is an OT invention which term I avoid as it is not understood by anyone outside of OT.  FOR is a term that derives from perception theory, and attests to the nature of perspective in governing knowledge.  Mosey’s original term as dictated in her Three Frames of Reference for Mental Health takes into consideration that OTs practice according to the theoretical environment in which they work.  Some institutions were psychoanalytical, some behavioral, etc.  And OTs delivered practice according to the beliefs of those institutions.  Which is another reason I prefer not to use the term FOR.  I believe that OTs have a clearly defined set of beliefs that are philosophically and theoretically grounded. (If you want to know what I think those are, see my writings or email me).  It is when we are uncertain of those beliefs and recklessly change those beliefs when pressured by employers, insurance carriers, etc., we are in trouble.  So, I recommend the use of theory, when the notion is well tested, and model of practice when it is less well tested, but guides practice nonetheless.  Approach is not a term I have ever seen used to describe these major categories of knowledge organization.  It probably describes a method used in practice.    Dr. Estelle Breines, Seton Hall University   -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 10:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: (no subject)   Hello to all, Here is a question I would like to ask.  I find much of the terminology in occupational therapy very confusing.  What is the difference (and examples would be great) between frame of reference, models, theory, paradigms, and approach?  I would love to hear some input.   Sam