Authors:

WILSON, B.A.

Reference:

Year of publication:

1997

CBU number:

3601

Abstract:

While readers may share my enthusiasm and gratitude for Prigatano's further explication of holistic rehabilitation, I would be disappointed if this were the only issue that remained highlighted in the debate. Other areas that I hope will promote further critical analysis are my arguments concerning the strengths and weaknesses of approaches to rehabilitation which differ according to whether impairments, disabilities or handicaps are being treated. My critique of cognitive neuropsychological/theoretical approaches also deserves some reply. Readers may need to look again at my recommendations for combining approaches three and four, which certainly do not include classic behaviourism that Prigatano chooses to criticise regardless of my insistence that we take from at tradition only some components such as task analysis, behavioural assessment techniques, and certain strategies from behaviour therapy. I would have hoped that Prigatano would have addressed more fully my suggestion that the best way forward might be to combine an approach involving learning theory, cognitive psychology and neuropsychology with the holistic approach that gives due regard to patients' perceptions of their predicament. In choosing to concentrate almost exclusively on approach four there is a danger that the baby will be thrown out with the bath water!