Value-based decision making is implicit in the delivery of family interventions. Ethical intervention planning not only must incorporate the assessment of family needs, but also must consider how alternatives for meeting those needs compare to the values held by the family. Professionals have an ethical responsibility to choose interventions that strengthen families as well as address specific family needs. This paper describes a strategy for evaluating alternatives in family interventions using the values framework forwarded by Hobbs et al. (1984). A practitioners' checklist for family interventions is presented as a guide for assessing the consistency of proposed interventions with the values framework.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bailey, D. B. (1987). Collaborative goal-setting with families: Resolving differences in values and priorities for services. Journal of the Division for Early Childhood, 7(2), 59–71.
2.
Bailey, D. B., Simeonsson, R. J., Winton, P. J., Huntington, G. S., Comfort, M., Isbell, P., O'Donnell, K. J., & Helm, J. M. (1986). Family focused intervention: A functional model for planning, implementing, and evaluating individualized family services in early intervention. Journal of the Division for Early Childhood, 10(2), 156–171.
3.
Beckman, P. J. (1983). The influence of selected child characteristics on stress in families of handicapped infants. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88, 150–156.
4.
Callahan, D. (1970). Abortion: law, choice, and moralityLondon: Macmillan.
5.
Dewey, J. (1939). Theory at valuationChicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
Dokecki, P. R. (1983). The place of values in the world of psychology and public policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 60(3), 108–125.
7.
Dokecki, P. R., & Heflinger, C. A. (1987, June). Strengthening families of young handicapped children with handicapping conditions: Mapping backward from the "street level" pursuant to effective implementation of P.L. 99--457. Paper presented at the 1987 Bush Spring Colloquium of the Implementation of Public Law 99--457, Chapel Hill, NC.
8.
Donovan, W. C. (1986). Implementation analysis of a public policy in the care and treatment of persons with severe disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville.
9.
Dunst, C.J. (1985). Rethinking early intervention. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 5, 165–201.
10.
Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Cross, A. H. (1986). Mediating influences of social support: Personal, family, and child outcomes. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 90(4), 403–417.
11.
Dyson, L., & Fewell, R. R. (1986). Stress and adaptation in parents of young handicapped and nonhandicapped children: A comparative study. Journal of the Division for Early Childhood, 10(1), 25–35.
12.
Fewell, R. (1986). The measurement of family functioning. In L. Bickman & D. L. Weatherford (Eds.), Evaluating early intervention programs for severely handicapped children and their families (pp. 263–307). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
13.
Hobbs, N., Dokecki, P. R., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Moroney, R. M., Shayne, M. W., & Weeks, K. H. (1984). Strengthening familiesSan Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiryBeverly Hills: Sage Publications.
15.
Norris, W. (1973). The American heritage dictionary of the English languageNew York: American Heritage.
16.
Rincouer, P. (1978). The problem of the foundation of moral philosophy. Philosophy Today, 22, 175–192.
17.
Turnbull, A. P., & Turnbull, H. R. (1986). Families, professionals, and exceptionality: A special partnershipColumbus, OH: Merrill.
18.
Vickers, G. (1968). Value systems and social processNew York: Basic Books.
