Monday matters: Regroup

I’m back. We’re back. Everyone is back.

I had to take the past two weeks away from the site because I had to get some administrative work done and then my whole household was sick most of last week. I’m feeling about 95% now, and the rest of the family is up and running again.

I had a fantastic evening with some fellow music therapists here in the Minneapolis and St. Paul area; we had our monthly peer group meeting. I was pleased to meet three new people, and I’m already looking forward to next month’s get-together.

I wrote up a post on Michelle Erfurt’s site that was published a few days ago. I shared my self-care project. Find the post here.

Back to reading: More thought on music therapy assessment

Yesterday I started to read some of Tony Wigram’s article, “Music Therapy Assessment: Psychological assessment without words,” published in Psyke & Logos in 2007. I’ve been working with instrumental responses with some of my clients, but also, of course, with their vocal responses. Wigram cites J. Alvin’s list on vocal responses to include, “evaluating the significance of the voice as a revelation of personality,” as well as “evaluating the placement, projection and quality of the voice” and “control of pitch and intonation” (Psyke & Logos, 2007, 28, 339). I absolutely do these things. Nearly all of my clients do not use speech, and I consider the way they use their voice (even if that use is very limited).

How do you consider responses? Do you look at one — instrumental, vocal, or behavioral — with more weight?

Monday matters: Assessment

Assessment is a practice that continues from session to session and moment to moment. Formally, assessment happens at the beginning stages of treatment. In order to evaluate a client and his or her state on a meaningful level, assessment has to recur; it’s just that sometimes it isn’t termed “assessment.”

One of the facilitators of the clinical improvisation course I took at our Great Lakes Region conference sent along an article on assessment called “Music Therapy Assessment: Psychological Assessment Without Words,” by Tony Wigram. The article, published in Psyke & Logos in 2007, looks at the reasons behind assessment, and how assessment can be defined and categorized. Admittedly, I’ve not read the whole article yet, but I was struck by one list that was shown (page 339). Wigram shows music therapy pioneer Juliette Alvin’s lists for assessing responses to music therapy. Specifically, the list “instrumental responses” was what I enjoyed the most; I’ve been working with instrumental responses with some of my clients a lot lately, and this list helps me clarify even better what I have been doing. Some items on the list include, “the clients’ understanding of cause-effect relationships on the instruments,” “whether obsessions or compulsions are expressed through the instruments,” and “whether instrument playing is purposeful or random” (Psyke & Logos, 2007, 28, 339).

Of course there are several other items on the lists that I consider to be really important, but these are some that I might look at with some more care.

What kind of assessment tools do you use? I’m curious.

April peer group meeting

Upcoming events affiliated with Sound Matters Music Therapy, LLC

Minneapolis music therapist peer group meeting

Monday, April 28, 2014, 7:00 PM

Please contact Erin directly for information regarding location.

Writing prompt: Consider your theoretical orientation

This past Saturday, I attended a fantastic presentation called “An Overview of the Theories that Inform Music Therapy Practice,” given by Kathleen Murphy, PhD, MT-BC and James Hiller, PhD, MT-BC. Many students and interns were in attendance, but many professionals were there, too. Drs. Murphy and Hiller touched on five theoretical orientations in only an hour and a half, really delving into only two of the five. They discussed the role of the client, the role of the therapist, and the role of the music within the theories. The approaches that were considered at length were the behaviorist approach and the psychodynamic approach, because these two theories are quite different. Other theories were humanist/client-centered, music-centered, and cognitive-behavioral theory. As much as I am enthralled with the psychodynamic approach, I think I actually work inside the humanist orientation given my clientele. I found the whole presentation and break-down of roles within each theory to be clarifying.

My writing prompt for April is to consider your theoretical orientation, or combination thereof. One point the presenters made was that a therapist cannot consider himself “eclectic” without a foundation in one orientation.

Feel free to send me your words. I’ll look them over and have them up by the end of the month. Write on.