Abstract
On the basis of these findings it would appear that there is an urgent need for continuing study of prevocational evaluation units. If there is a conceptual framework within which we are to operate, what is it and where is it when we attempt to define our everyday procedures? What methodology is existent in our limited staffs and physical plants which permits us to carry out forty-five more or less different functions? On what validation studies does our confidence in our procedures and findings rest? Do we really mean to suggest, as is indicated by some of the terminology, that such units have three valid functions? Or does the term “evaluation” have so little significance that it often includes the functions of “treatment” and “training”?
This is not the time to attempt to unify our theories and methods; but surely it must be the time for continuing agency soul searching. The justification of this expensive service in the future will have to be based on more than a sincere desire to do something for our clients, and piecemeal evidence that it is a “worthwhile service” in the opinion of vocational rehabilitation personnel.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.